In our plan, WWS will supply electric power for heating and transportation—industries that will have to revamp if the world has any hope of slowing climate change. We have assumed that most fossil-fuel heating (as well as ovens and stoves) can be replaced by electric systems and that most fossil-fuel transportation can be replaced by battery and fuel-cell vehicles. Hydrogen, produced by using WWS electricity to split water (electrolysis), would power fuel cells and be burned in airplanes and by industry.
Plenty of Supply
Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today’s, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.
Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential.
The other WWS technologies will help create a flexible range of options. Although all the sources can expand greatly, for practical reasons, wave power can be extracted only near coastal areas. Many geothermal sources are too deep to be tapped economically. And even though hydroelectric power now exceeds all other WWS sources, most of the suitable large reservoirs are already in use.
The Plan: Power Plants Required
Clearly, enough renewable energy exists. How, then, would we transition to a new infrastructure to provide the world with 11.5 TW? We have chosen a mix of technologies emphasizing wind and solar, with about 9 percent of demand met by mature water-related methods. (Other combinations of wind and solar could be as successful.)
Wind supplies 51 percent of the demand, provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide. Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year. Another 40 percent of the power comes from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooftop panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.
Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth’s land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet’s land. Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants, which themselves would occupy a lot more land, as would the mining to supply them.
Powering a Green Planet: Sustainable Energy, Made Interactive
Next Generation Nuclear Power
Boundaries for a Healthy Planet
Plan B for Energy: 8 Revolutionary Energy Sources
Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever
Clean Cities and Dirty Coal Power--China's Energy Paradox
World Changing Ideas: 20 Ways to Build a Cleaner, Healthier, Smarter World
170 Comments
Add CommentI thought that neodymium was used for the permanent magnets in the generators - why would it be needed for the gearbox unless to trap metallic particles worn of the gears? Recently I priced diesel electric generators at about �100,000 per Mw and on shore wind turbines at �million per Mw in the UK. The bits that catch the wind seem to be very expensive. Perhaps that's the trouble. In effect they are aeroplanes on top of a pole. But the job description of each is quite different. The engineers, being mostly from the aerospace industry went for high aerodynamic efficiency and minimum material. That's as it should be for aircraft - and aircraft operators expect to do a lot of careful mainenance. Wind turbines on the other hand are expected to turn wind energy into electrical energy as cheaply as possible with long life and low maintenance. The present popular designs of horizontal axis machines cannot do this because they are not fail safe, and only get marginally cheaper with increaseing scale ( and at the cost of more limited operating range ) Really large vertical axis machines may not be as aerodynamically efficient, but may win the tortoise and hare race by producing cheaper energy due to lower costs from cheaper construction, wider operating range, and much cheaper maintenance and repair. I am disappointed the authors did not consider alternative transport devices such as evacuated tube transport, but stuck with the automobile. Even it could be transformed if it could safely access electrical energy from in the road supplies. There are ideas out there which would allow this whilst not impeding present vehicle types, and not stressing the world supplies of lithium and platinum. A very large wind and wave resource is off shore and the technology to harvest it might probably involve devices to generate from both at the same locality. In the North sea ( to the east of UK ) wind turbines are inaccessible for more than 10% of the time. This would not be the case if they were mounted on a wave power generator as the lee of such a machine would be relatively calm water. Many people live more than 49degees away from the equator with all that implies for the seasonal and daily supply of solar energy. For them, a smart grid may not be enough without additional energy storage. The wind patterns of North America are not representative of places such as eastern europe and asia, where extensive high pressure systems can remain for weeks at a time.The authors could have been clearer about how much they were taking intermittancy into account
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read the November issue story about A Path to Sustainable Energy by Jacobson and Delucci with two contradictory feelings: gratitude because such a study makes it more possible for it to happen and secondly exasperation because an important element was ignored. While geothermal electric power generation was included, ground based geothermal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisheat pumps were omitted. This technology needs no
infrastructure to be developed (perhaps that it the reason it was omitted) but it should be a part of a sustainable plan. It needs public awareness. It needs publicity because too many homeowners, builders and architects are unaware
or have misconceptions about heat pumps. Greater usage could have an enormous impact by reducing our dependence on oil. I just wave at the oil trucks passing by my house without stopping zero oil costs.
I read the November issue story about A Path to Sustainable Energy by Jacobson and Delucci with two contradictory feelings: gratitude because such a study makes it more possible for it to happen and secondly exasperation because an important element was ignored. While geothermal electric power generation was included, ground based geothermal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisheat pumps were omitted. This technology needs no
infrastructure to be developed (perhaps that it the reason it was omitted) but it should be a part of a sustainable plan. It needs public awareness. It needs publicity because too many homeowners, builders and architects are unaware
or have misconceptions about heat pumps. Greater usage could have an enormous impact by reducing our dependence on oil. I just wave at the oil trucks passing by my house without stopping zero oil costs.
The November 2009 article "A Path To Sustainable Energy By 2030" is based on a false premise and then naturally develops the wrong solution. The pronouncement of former vice president Al Gore notwithstanding, it is not necessary "to repower America with 100% carbon-free electricity within 10 years" in order to solve the global warming problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll carbon-based fuels are not created equal. Replacing FOSSIL fuels with BIO fuels would also work. Not all biofuels are created equal either. If Iowa didn't run a presidential beauty contest every four years, corn-based ethanol wouldn't be on the table. Ethanol from cellulose is also a bad choice. Both require far too much new investment. The world has a huge investment in coal burning electricity generating facilities. Coal is also a hydrocarbon (although a very dirty one). That investment should be used, not scrapped. That means supplying clean hydrocarbons from renewable resources to existing coal fired electricity generating facilities.
The authors are aware of the cost issue and on page 64 write "the overall construction cost for a WWS system might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide, over 20 years, not including transmission." Let's consider that number a bit. The United States consumes 25% of the world's energy. That might imply our bill should be $25 trillion. The poor countries of the world won't let us off that easily. They will demand that we pay for our previous sins by subsidizing their upgrades. Let's estimate our negotiated share as $50 trillion. Divide that among our population of 300 million people and it amounts to almost $200,000 per person. For a family of four, that's slightly less than a million dollars. Even over 20 years, that figures out to $50,000 per year per family to finance this brave new world. Mr. and Mrs. America, can you spare $50,000 a year in additional energy costs? I don't think so. Ain't gonna happen.
The authors want to build 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines. I went on the Internet to find that turbines of this size cost $5 to $10 million each. That's $20 to $40 trillion. They want to build 1,700,000,000 3 kW rooftop photovoltaic systems. The Internet suggests that each of these would cost $24,000 in the absence of subsidies. Subsidies should only finance R&D, not implementation. That means eliminating the subsidies to the nuclear industry. That's another $40 trillion. There are six more items in this list. Is the sum really only $100 trillion?
The problem with these enormous capital costs is that the money must be raised and spent before the new investment produces any power. The analogy with World War Two is fallacious. In wartime, costs don't matter. They do to consumers.
The authors demand that the solution involve clean technologies only. They consider only technologies "that have near-zero emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants over their entire life cycle including construction, operation and decommissioning." There is nothing wrong with emitting carbon dioxide by burning biofuels. Plants suck carbon dioxide out of the air to make their biomass. Burning it simply puts it back again. There is no net increase.
The authors assume "that most fossil fuel transportation can be replaced by battery and fuel-cell vehicles. Hydrogen, produced by using WWS produced electricity to split water would power fuel cells and be burned in airplanes and by industry." How do they plan to store that hydrogen? The weight of any container now foreseeable is enormous compared to the amount of hydrogen it can hold. In aircraft, minimizing weight is a high priority in design. Again, why not burn hydrocarbons from biofuels?
The authors feel that "wind and sun out in the open seas ... would not be available." But this would be a dandy place to grow algae. Putting the coal companies out of business would solve many of the air pollution problems which drive external health-care costs cited by the authors. Hydrocarbons from algae would also be far cleaner than crude oil as a refinery feedstock.
I agree that taxing fossil fuels make sense. But the authors also recommend that "misguided promotion of alternatives that are less desirable than WWS as power, such as farm and production subsidies for biofuels, should also be ended, because it delays deployment of cleaner systems." Growing algae in the ocean has no lobbying by entrenched energy industries. The oil industry makes most of its money in the drilling part of the operation. Refining crude oil into salable products is a commodity business. Growing algae converts a hunter-gatherer system into one of farming. Technological civilizations do not produce food by hunting mammoths and picking berries. Our fuel industry needs to modernize.
The authors assert that "obstacles to (WWS systems) are primarily political, not technical." Not when you want to spend $100 trillion of consumer's money! This is a technical problem, one which the world should not bother to solve. The authors state that "changes in the real-world power and transportation industries will have to overcome sunk investments in existing infrastructure." Not true. The optimum policy will make the best use of those investments rather than ignoring them. Farming algae in the ocean could replace all existing fossil fuel and nuclear power within the author's stated timeframe. And at much lower investment.
The authors call for "clear leadership, or else nations will keep trying technologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists." Scientists work for industry too. Like the authors, many sincerely believe their way of doing things is the best way. Not all of them are right. The problem is that entrenched industries have more money to devote to lobbying and advertising than nascent industries do. Countering this misleading propaganda should be the task of semi-scientific articles like this one. Instead, this article suffers from the very tactics of the industries it opposes.
For more details see the website
http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/200111/
and read about the algae Botryococcus braunii.
Jacobson & Delucchi have convincingly shown that powering the world with their combination of measures is infeasible. The current infrastructure was built over a century, using plentiful cheap oil (the factor not mentioned in the article). The authors cite World War II as an example of the industrial effort needed. In that war the civilian economy was put on hold; no civilian automobiles were made, no tires, no toasters. Such a pace of production cannot be sustained for two decades. That production, and the interstate highway system, were built with huge quantities of cheap domestic oil. That resource is gone - US production peaked in 1970, and onshore conventional (i. e. cheap) oil peaked worldwide in 2005. The new infrastructure would have to be built along with maintaining the current economy, all on a declining oil base.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe proposal to build 3.8 million wind turbines means 520 turbines every day for 20 years, each a major industrial project with blades 100 meters across, producing 1/200 as much power as one fossil fuel powerplant. Each has to be cited, NIMBY objections overcome, installed and hooked to an expanded electrical grid. Dont even think about the 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems that cost twice as much per KwH as wind. And the capital required for all of this is on top of that required to maintain the current economy, already seeing strains.
All is not lost, though. The article misses some obvious, and more cost-effective, options. Solar hot water is cost-competitive now in areas that do not freeze (home to more than a quarter of the US population). Simple rooftop or backyard batch heaters, no moving parts, can supply most hot water, a significant fraction of home energy use. Good insulation and passive solar designs can nearly eliminate need for heating in those areas, at much less cost than the electricity otherwise required. Electricity demand would still far exceed the authors estimates, though, as it would have to replace most current uses of natural gas and gasoline.
In short, were in trouble. Even if we start building those 520 turbines/day soon, along with all the other measures, we are going to have to learn to get along on a lot less energy in the future.
This is pure garbage. C
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPure garbage. Jacobson has written similar trash in the past. Charles Barton rips Jacobson's previous work to shreds:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/search?q=jacobson
Tom Blees has just written a devastating analysis of Danish Wind energy, that just blows away any dreams of Wind becoming an effective substitute for fossil fuels. Denmark is going to have to start PAYING its neighbors to accept its produces-the-most-when-needed-the-least Wind Energy:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/22/denmark-wind-experiment-awry/
Peter Lang has done a solid analysis of running Australia (certainly one of the best locations on Earth) on Solar Power:
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_solar_realities_v2.pdf
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_solar_realities_addendum.pdf
His conclusion:
"&The capital cost would be 20 times more than nuclear power. The least-cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.
Conclusions: solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others&"
Peter Lang shows that just the power transmission trunk lines to support a Wind & Solar strategy in Australia will cost 50% more that the Nuclear option:
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lang_transmission_cost.pdf
And Peter is using a pricey $4,000 per kw for Nuclear Power. Whereas ABWRs built in Japan in the 90s cost $1400 per kw, Chinese recent estimates for the final cost of their first two AP-1000s at $1760 per kw. Before the Coal Lobby had the NRC (Nuclear Rejection Commission) instated, Nuclear Reactors in the USA were coming in at an average of $1100 per kwe with Quad Cities 1800 MWe coming it at $680 per kwe, thats in 2007 dollars!!
Depleted Cranium has a couple articles about how the pro-fossil-fuel NRC Scam was used to cause Nuclear Costs to skyrocket in the United States:
http://depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/#comments
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
Furthermore, Global Warming is going to reduce the temperature differential between Polar & Equatorial regions on the Earth thus reducing overall Wind Energy as well as certainly changing the best Wind & Solar regions, causing large mega-costly installations to be uneconomical. Large Volcanic eruptions (two in the 1800s) will also cause a MAJOR DISRUPTION in global Wind & Solar Energy supply tragically at the same time - a big drop in global food production. Talking about compounding Misery with Madness. See:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.physorg.com/news163835515.html
http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/papers/Muckerheide05_21stC-6000plants.pdf
And Iran (as one example) is testing apogee detonating missiles whose only purpose could be to deliver an EMP weapon over (presumably) the United States. This will demolish the highly vulnerable super grid that Jacobsons plan relies upon. Not so with small underground Nuclear Reactors, located close to Load Centers. As an example the the Hyperion Nuclear Reactor. With 27 MWe and 70 MWth output at a cost of $30 million or $1,100 per kwe and $429 per kwth for the reactor, with 8 to 10 years between refueling. Could simply replace the steam generator at a Coal or NG power plant. See:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43956
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/hyperion-power-generation-uranium.html
The article is in direct conflict with David JC MacKay's book: "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" (which is available free online). He does a detailed analysis of many renewable and not-so-renewable sources of energy, and the basic conclusion is that without nuclear, it doesn't work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy question for the authors and SciAm editors, is "what are we poor non-scientists to make of all of this?" We don't have the resources or time to compare these conflicting books/articles head to head. You could do us a tremendous service, and help the public debate along by doing so.
Reading the SciAm article, a bunch of folks are going to say, "peachy: we're done. All the world has to do is spend 5 trillion a year for 20 years." Those reading MacKay's book will say, "Peachy: bring on the nuc's and we're all set."
We are inundated with conflicting information that we cannot verify, so each faction picks the data that serves its ends, and blathers away on some TV show, then some politicians simplify it even more, and use it to push an unknown agenda.
Please, so a comprehensive survey of the numbers and claims, at least from these two sources.
This paper is an irresponsible piece of nonsense that would generally be found for order in the back pages of some pulp fiction magazine. The sad part is the editors for some reason chose to not only publish the claptrap but to endorse it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about the authors' 7 cents a kWh current cost of wind energy. Horns Rev 2, the world's largest offshore wind farm cost $1 billion for 209 MW = $4800 per kw peak.
Add extra transmission lines, storage, a capacity factor of 25%, finance it at 5% and we get 20 cents a kWh - Germany's and Ontario, Canada's feed in tariff.
So where did that absurd 7 cents a kWh come from?
Jacobson rejects nuclear power because he claims it puts out 25 times as much carbon per unit energy as wind, based on the astonishing claim that nuclear power plants lead to one nuclear bomb attack every thirty years, resulting in enormous amounts of atmospheric soot. While this argument in itself makes one wonder about his sanity, nuclear bomb material is not made in power reactors.
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2008/12/review-of-mark-z-jscobsons-review.html
Big Oil has been putting out anti nuclear propaganda since the oil crisis they engineered in the seventies - that almost no nuclear plants have been built since is evidence of their success.
Mass produced nuclear power is expected to cost $1 billion a gigawatt and 2500 gigawatts would displace all $900 billion a year in American fossil fuel purchases wiping out Big Coal/Oil with a three year payback. Call it the Nuclear Picken's plan. They know renewables are a joke and will have no effect on their profits.
James Hoggans new book Climate Cover-Up shows how Big Coal/Oil finances global warming deniers. One of their tactics is planting denier pieces in main stream media. It isn't a stretch to think they are doing the same thing with Nuclear deniers at Scientific American.
Author Mark A. Delucchi from is UC Davis and his work is brought to you courtesy of Chevron.
http://eec1.ucdavis.edu/news/news-archives/chevronendowment
The world is maybe ten years from a civilization destroying climate and peak oil disaster and only nuclear power can save us in that short a time frame. China and India have taken the lead with proposals for 120 and 450 gigawatts of new nuclear.
This sort of renewable nonsense from Nuclear Deniers and this magazines irresponsible editors bring us that much closer to the edge.
Even though the costs are probably understated in the article, as fwegert points out, the costs alone make this idea impossible. Further, are we to believe that society will develop expensive energy sources and ignore the cheap and abundant sources which lay at their feet? Surely there will be countries (think India and China) which will exploit these sources and lay waste to the economies of the develped countries. This will undercut the developed economies ability to pay for the proposed scheme and doom it to failure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA possible nuclear solution is here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.intellectualventures.com/docs/terrappower/IV_Introducing%20TWR_3_6_09.pdf
Traveling wave reactors, whether designed by these folks or others, are likely to be a major part of a solution matrix. I suspect that India and China will adopt them first.
(disclosure: my son in law works for Intellectual Ventures).
Eddie O
As a physicist focused on energy research, I find this paper so absurdly poorly done that it is borderline irresponsible. The authors cherry-picked highly inaccurate claims from other papers solely because those were the only claims that could support their pre-determined conclusion (that we can meet all of our needs purely with renewable power).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that they think hydrogen fuel cells and tidal power have any value in the energy future is enough to illustrate that they either did not spend much time analyzing the actual technologies they are promoting, or are intentionally duping readers (as many in the energy field do).
Dr. Michael Briggs
As a physicist focused on a broad spectrum of energy research, who tries to play the role of an "honest broker" in the energy industry, I find this paper so poorly done that it is completely irresponsible. The authors clearly cherry-picked data taken from other poorly done papers to support their pre-determined conclusion - that we can meet all of our energy needs with renewable sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simple fact that they think that hydrogen fuel cells and tidal power have any realistic role to play in our energy future illustrates that they either did not do any serious analysis of the technologies involved, or are intentionally deluding readers. Nobody who has seriously analyzed those technologies (and is capable of understanding the energy sector) would promote them as things we should be focusing on.
Others have already pointed out many other serious problems with the paper, so I won't bother at this point. There are so many mistakes, it would take hours of typing to point out all of the problems. The fact that Scientific American publishes something so poorly done does not speak well of the journal.
Dr. Michael Briggs
Wow ! I nonetheless have ADDITIONAL POINTS:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The use of the "Similarity" PRINCIPAL from Fictional Magic seems to be how they got all that wind in the Nighttime:
a: Wind often is up when the Sun is not -- as in storms
b: The Sun is not out at Night.
c: Therefore, Wind is 5 times stronger AT NIGHT
Also
2. ... as storms peak: Blades must be shut down or feathered, so Wind does NOT get a net advantage from Storms -- though the 20 cent per kWh above is 10 cents for Onshore Europe, and 2/3rds that in Iowa )
3. ALL wind must be substituted for by natural Gas or Coal -- and there is no inclusion of that -- AND it is at least 60% in Iowa, 80% in Europe.
4. As Coal is 2 cents/kWh then it's transmission must be 5
--- the 4 cent costs cited in the article MUST BE NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTION COST. Which is real hard.
While they are off some like biomass of which 95% is going to end up CO2 anyway, their basic premise is good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDetails are Nukes are not cheap. Recently built ones go for $7B-8.5B here in Fla and Finland, about $8k/kw. Nukes I think can do better with 4.0 units but they are too far away. Coal is $4k/kw, both plus fuel.
Wind is around $1.3k/kw, google axial flux wind generators for many builders.
Solar CSP in home sizes are once in mass production under $3k/kw with a 3kw heat bonus. Solar happens at peak power needs and it can be fed wood pellets if needed and the sun don't shine. Battery storage is only $100/kw so storing it is cheap.
PV is now selling for $2.5/k/kw for panels and inverters, you make mounts, install. www.sunelec.com
Dr Briggs is misinformed on tidal/river power as I've done it for under $2k/kw and the US has enough resources as does Europe to replace both coal and nuke. Sadly I seem to be the only one doing it right.
The biggest fuel of all is that which we don't use though eff/conservation. That in the US is at least 50% right there. Others not so much.
We can use 10% of the fossil fuel now used without hurting the environment, especially NG for semi's, chemical feedstocks and peak power needs. Most chemical feedstocks are not released but in plastics, etc so not a GHG problem.
But the detractors mostly miss the facts of what staying on fossil fuels will cost as their price is rising with a bullet vs RE which is dropping fast.
Honest facts easily show RE, Eff/conservation are by far the lowest cost energy source of the future. Deal with it.
Everything Jerry wrote has been contracted earlier by dwbd with references.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere have been no nuclear plants built in the US in years. Quotes? estimates? The Finnish plant is a first of a kind. How much do you think the first Chevy Volt is going to cost to build?
With 12% Wall Street hedge fund money a private utility like Florida's Progress Energy must charge many times more than a public power utility. Of course being in Florida the price has to double again to cover all the attorneys, environmental studies, overzealous regulators, huge insurance premiums, and dare I say the gang of notoriously corrupt Florida politicians at all levels of government.
For more accurate numbers how about westinghouses 4.8 gigawatt $5.3 billion dollar sale to China- google it.
Or try
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=next-generation-nuclear or how about
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/news_room/worldview1002.pdf
The design for an Gen IV IFR was finished 15 years ago by Idaho National Laboratories but Bill Clinton mindful of those oil company campaign donations shut it down. A Toshiba IFR is ready for 2012 service and up for NRC approval. Sandia labs has a 300 mw IFR designed and has found a partner to built it. India, China and Russia also have Gen 4 units under construction and working.
With your wind/solar/tidal figures you seem to have a problem relating peak costs to average. The US solar roof top and wind peak to annual average ratio is about 10%. Multiple your numbers by ten.
50% conservation at what cost? Low hanging fruit at less than 4 cents a kWh is 20% at most. For the rest 2 cent a kWh mass produced nuclear is a lot cheaper.
Germany has already wasted 10 years and $100 billion on "renewables" and has not reduced its greenhouse emissions one iota. To help with its new found addiction to Russian gas, it is planning a massive build of dirty coal plants to meet its baseload power requirements.
www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/germanys-green-energy-gap/
Honest facts easily show "renewables" are by far the most expensive energy source today and in the future, Nuclear is by far the cheapest.
We are as little as ten years from a civilization ending global warming/peak oil catastrophe and only a World War II scale conversion of fossil fuels to nuclear has any chance of saving us. This solar/wind nonsense Jerry keeps repeating is worse than the Global Warming Denier stuff at distracting us from the solution. Do some research, learn basic reading and arithmetic skills then you deal with it.
Has anyone even given thought to the effect of all these wind turbines drag on the wind patterns of the globe at least at low altitudes. Similarly covering rooftops with solar cells will change the albedo factor of the planet and reflection patterns of sunlight - is that insignificant? How about the disturbances to currents of water and direction of flow with farms of wave energy harnessing converters. The ramifications of all these changes to the profile of the earth could be similarly damaging to the climate as the carbon emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerryd, your honest facts are absolute hogwash. Do you even know the difference between avg power output & peak? Have you ever heard of the term capacity factor? Do you even have a clue about baseload power, spinning reserve and backup power?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy Efficiency? 50% - in your imagination. The greatest potential for energy efficiency is the electrification of transport. As Electric Vehicles are around 80% average efficiency vs ICE vehicles avg around 11% efficiency. Big difference. Unfortunately, the avg ICEV uses about 1.5 Usgal of gasoline per day. Thats 50 kWh/day. So electric vehicle would save about 41 kWh/day or avg 1.7 kw. Cost of electric vehicle = ~ $30,000. /1.7kw = $17,600 per kwavg. That is expensive energy saving. With Nuclear going for $1000 to $2000 per kwavg. And Nuclear lasts for 60-100 yrs vs the EV maybe 10-20 yrs. So there you are, the biggest & best energy efficiency is about 10X more expensive than Nuclear, just like your Wind is. Solar more like 20 to 70x more.
Whereas ABWRs built in Japan in the 90s cost $1400 per kw, Chinese recent estimates for the final cost of their first two AP-1000s at $1760 per kw. Before the Coal Lobby had the NRC (Nuclear Rejection Commission) instated, Nuclear Reactors in the USA were coming in at an average of $1100 per kwe with Quad Cities 1800 MWe coming it at $680 per kwe, thats in 2007 dollars!! Without the NRC scumbags (or equivalent), just take a look what India can achieve for costs:
&capital cost of the Kaiga reactors is $1.49 per watt. The Rajasthan units have an estimated cost of Rs.3072 crores. with a capital cost of $1.40 per watt. Lets review some other recent Indian PHWR costs:
TAPP-3&4 has an approved cost of Rs. 6525 crores, but it is anticipated that the Project would be completed in about Rs.6000 crores. . .,
Or about $1.11 cents per watt. The lower cost can be attributed to economies of scale for the 540 MWe PHWR units. I previously inferred from statements about TAPP costs that the construction cost for 220 MW PHWRs ran about $1.18 per watt. That not appears to be 20 to 30 cents low per watt. it should be noted that the 700 MWe PHWR uses a slightly upgraded variant of the 540 MW PHWR core. If the upgrade is accomplished without any significant cost increases, then the cost of the 700 MWe PHWRs could run as low as $0.85 per watt&.
From:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/indian-reactot-costs-further.html
So, JerryD, there you have it, $850/kw to $1490/kw for Indian reactors. And the Hyperion 27 MWe, 70 MWth, for $30 million, that's $1111 per kwe and $428 per kwth. Could replace the boiler on an existing Coal power plant. And Greenpeace is big on CHP, well small reactors like Hyperion, Slowpoke3 or Toshiba 4S are far better suited for CHP then your GHG emitting, toxic carcinogenic fumes spewing NG, Coal & Biomass burning power plants. Even big Nuclear power plants make excellent CHP desalination plants, something your fossil fuel CHP plants are just impractical for. See:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/hyperion-power-generation-uranium.html
Sunny Spain has just had a rude awakening about Solar Energy, after figuring out that all they are getting for taxpayer costs of $26.4 billion is a miserable 450 MW average output or an ASTOUNDING $58,670 PER KW!! Even the First-of-a-kind Darlington ACANDUs which includes the development cost, fuel for 60 yrs, all cost overruns, utility & HIGHWAY UPGRADES!?! & decommissioning, bid is C$26 billion for 2160 MW avg. And Germany's Solar program, by 2013 it is expected to be 1375 MW avg. Which will cost the German taxpayer US$113 billion, thats $82,000 per kw avg.
A DEVASTATING ANALYSIS of Danish Wind Energy at BraveNewClimate.com this month. Denmark is going to have to PAY other countries to take its Wind Energy!:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/22/denmark-wind-experiment-awry/ - more-1886
Jerry learn real truth about Wind Energy, here:
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
To learn why the inherent intermittency of Wind Energy makes it impractical and a fossil fuel gobbler, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUbGZHXD7fM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvg0NNr8Xdo
Those are the REAL FACTS, Jerry, deal with it.
"assumed that most fossil-fuel heating can be replaced by electric systems and most fossil-fuel transportation can be replaced
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby battery and fuel-cell vehicles. Hydrogen,
produced by using WWS"
Have those assumptions been analysed by looking at what it would take for those replacements and how long 100% replacement would take, in practice? Can hydrogen be produced at a suitable rate? What about growth?
"For example, only 17 to 20 % of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle, whereas 75 to 86 % of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion."
What is the total efficiency, from scratch to doing work moving that car?
"each [wind and solar] far beyond future human demand"
How do the authors now what the limit of future human demand will be? Do the authors realise that ALL of that wind and solar is employed in the earth's energy systems right now?
"with about 30 % of the photovoltaic output from rooftop
panels on homes and commercial buildings"
Are there enough resources to manufacture this number of efficient photovoltaic panels and what is their failure rate?
"might be able to take up the slack ... could be restricted
by the silver ... could tackle that hurdle ... Recycling parts from old cells could ameliorate"
Might? Could? Where is the rigorous analysis? How does recycling parts of batteries enable more batteries to be made?
"Also helpful is interconnecting geographically dispersed
sources so they can back up one another"
Has this intermittency been included in the calculations? Do we need 3 times 16.9 TW of baseplate capacity?
"automatically recharge electric vehicles when demand is low"
Have the authors looked at how practical this is? They are talking of the ideal situation but are we likely to reach only 50%, 20% or 5% of that ideal? People operate their lives in very different ways and have very varied facilities for the sort of regime suggested.
"Overall construction cost for a WWS system
might be on the order of $100 trillion worldwide,
over 20 years, not including transmission."
But for quite some time, separate fully fledged infrastructures will need to be maintained, even expanded at times, until the new WWS infrastructure is completely up and running. Are these costs included and how likely is such investment over 20 years?
There was virtually no mention of motive power for aircraft and ships, or how that transition would be made.
At what point can this parallel infrastructure be built only using energy provided by renewables?
BTW nuclear ain't going to do it. Apart from questions over supply of uranium - with alternatives yet to prove themselves on a commercial scale - and over waste disposal and saftey, nuclear fuel is not sustainable; why even head down that road when we've seen where using unstainable fuels (or using fuels unsustainably) lead?
Use less and figure out how to live sustainably.
This article shows the way to go for a green, sustainable world. I wonder why the author has not considered hydrogen as a source of renewable energy and an energy carrier to replace petrol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article! I notice that conservation received little mention, but the fact is that we must break the cycle of requiring ever greater energy or we'll run out of windmills sooner or later. The first step should be to minimize energy use through efficiency and passive solar, and then move to clean and green energy generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the leadership vacuum left by Canada and the US when it comes to going green, India has decided to go Thorium nuclear, which is at least a better choice than uranium: http://www.celsias.com/article/i-know-nuclear-power-bad/
Earlier this year I was annoyed at people telling me it was impossible to elliminate the use of fossil fuels and not offering any practical alternative. So I did a very rough calculation on what it would cost to replace all of the 132,500,000,000,000 Kwh of energy the world uses (March SciAm pg 24) with current 2000kW ($3,500,000/turbine) windmill technology (~6,000,000 kWh/year). I came up with a very reasonable $77.3 trillion dollars. This seems like a really big number, but the cost to substitute the entire world's energy with wind (Ok, I don't include new infrastructure and storage and a few other things) and if you do it over the span of 50 years, it is absolutely doable. Stop wasting money on research on possible magic bullets and use today's technology. Advances will eventually come in reducing the cost of solar and energy storage. We have to start somewhere and start big. Lets treat this like a war now, because it will eventually become a war if we do nothing. And, it will be a war that we will not have the energy to win.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"supply of uranium - with alternatives yet to prove themselves on a commercial scale .......nuclear fuel is not sustainable-"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually they have. The Shippingport Pa fast breeder worked as a commercial fast breeder in the 80's without problem until crooked politicians in the Reagan administration (Big Oil money) had it shut down. Several are operating, more are under construction and up for permitting. They have 100% burnup rates, burn old nuclear waste, produce almost no and benign waste themselves, use massive supplies of thorium fuel giving them a fuel supply of hundreds of years while providing all the world's power requirements. As well thorium and reprocessed fuel rods can be used as fuel in Gen 3.5 reactors.
"Stop wasting money on research on possible magic bullets and use today's technology. "
The United States spends $1 trillion annually on fossil fuels. Projections and now evidence from India shows that mass production of nuclear reactors have cut costs from todays less than $2 billion to less than $1 billion a gigawatt - 5% of current renewable costs. $2.5 trillion in nukes saves $1 trillion annually for a 2.5 year payback.
The nuclear conversion saves us a ton of money, eliminates our air pollution, creates a huge employment boosting domestic and export industry, and makes our economy far more competitive than Europe's run by fools with the "renewable" religion. With the current depression, the industrial capacity is available.
You are right. Why dump money into expensive massively resource wasting wind power coming in at double your cost estimates with the frills like storage and transmission are factored in, when when the answer using todays tech is right here waiting for the go ahead.
We can't wait to fifty years to git'er done.We are as little as ten years from a civilization ending global warming/peak oil catastrophe so solution is urgent. Read this paper and buy a lotto ticket because it might already be happening.
www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=28
Hi there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an engineer working for the wind turbine industry. I come from the aerospace industry and I actually design wind turbine blades.
For your information our design parameter is the Cost Of Energy, and the structure, materials and design of a wind turbine blade has little to do with the desgin of an airfcraft wing.
Also, the industry has lost its interest in the vertical axis wind turbines due to their efficiency be far below that of the horizontal axis wind turbines. Also there are some structural problems, and aerodynamic problems due to the wake-blade interaction.
Regards.
In alignment with some of the comments here, I also prefer nuclear to the expenses of solar, but if, and only if, we can find a way to deal with nuclear waste other than hiding it. De-radiation, the best I can sum up the general idea, needs research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy profession I do transmission studies for wind and solar clients. My company name is TAC meaning Transmission Adequacy Consulting at web page http://www.egpreston.com. I currently am doing studies all across the US. "A path to sustainable energy by 2030" omits the transmission system needed by 2030. Because the wind and solar and water and geothermal projects are not in the locations of the existing power plants, new lines will be needed. Looking at the graph on page 63, and carefully measuring scales on the graph, I estimate that there is 40,000 MW of wind and 40,000 MW of centralized solar on that graph. The reason I omitted rooftop solar is because Jacobson has its contribution to be rather small. For example, multiplying out the numbers on page 61 you will get 5.1 TW of rooftop solar and 26.7 TW of large scale solar of 300 MW size in farms, much like wind farms. This seems reasonable since centralized solar is twice as cost effective as rooftop solar. Since the rooftop solar is small I will omit it from these comments. That leaves us needing 80,000 MW of new wind solar and geothermal generation just to serve California. I think an estimate of 500 miles from wind and solar resources to major load centers is reasonable. A 500 kV transmission line is rated at about 2000 MW max power. But you don't want to operate it at that power level because the losses are too high and there is no reserve capacity in the line to handle the first contingency problem. Therefore I will estimate we will load the new 500 kV lines to about 1500 MW on average. So we have 80,000 MW of renewable sources widely scattered around the Western System (WECC) with each carrying 1500 MW so that we need roughly 50 new 500 kV lines of 500 miles each, for a total length of 25,000 miles. The article assumes there is little solar power energy storage and it also assumes the wind be blowing at night. We know for sure that the solar power is not available at night so we are nearly totally dependent on wind for night time energy. You are going to ask about the geothermal energy. One geothermal project I recently worked on for determining the transmission access for looked like a good project until the geothermal energy extraction failed to work. Recently other geothermal projects have created human induced earthquakes. Geothermal energy seem less likely today than just a few years ago. So we are nearly totally dependent on wind energy for the nighttime CA energy as envisioned in the 100% renewables by 2030. If we plan for those few occurrences when there is no wind in the WECC system, we must interconnect WECC with the rest of the US so CA can draw power from other wind generators that do have wind (hopefully) outside the WECC area, such as the Texas coast and east of the rocky mountains where massive wind farms can be constructed. However we will need at least 40,000 MW of lines that I estimate will average 2000 miles in length. If we used 500 kV lines, we would need about 25 of these lines bridging from WECC to the US eastern grid and ERCOT and the total length would be about 50,000 miles. By 2030 we would need 75,000 miles of new 500 kV lines just to serve California with 100% renewables. Considering that we have the period from 2010 to 2030, that means we would have to construct about 4000 miles of new 500 kV lines every year from now until 2030 for the renewables plan as outlined in this article to work. I do not believe this is achievable at all. Therefore the concept envisioned in the SA article is not a workable plan because the transmission problems have not been addressed. The lines arent going to get built. The wind is not going to interconnect. The SA article plan is not even a desirable plan. The environmental impact and cost would be horrendous. Lets get realistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy profession I do transmission studies for wind and solar clients. My company name is TAC meaning Transmission Adequacy Consulting at web page http://www.egpreston.com. I currently am doing studies all across the US. "A path to sustainable energy by 2030" omits the transmission system needed by 2030. Because the wind and solar and water and geothermal projects are not in the locations of the existing power plants, new lines will be needed. Looking at the graph on page 63, and carefully measuring scales on the graph, I estimate that there is 40,000 MW of wind and 40,000 MW of centralized solar on that graph. The reason I omitted rooftop solar is because Jacobson has its contribution to be rather small. For example, multiplying out the numbers on page 61 you will get 5.1 TW of rooftop solar and 26.7 TW of large scale solar of 300 MW size in farms, much like wind farms. This seems reasonable since centralized solar is twice as cost effective as rooftop solar. Since the rooftop solar is small I will omit it from these comments. That leaves us needing 80,000 MW of new wind solar and geothermal generation just to serve California. I think an estimate of 500 miles from wind and solar resources to major load centers is reasonable. A 500 kV transmission line is rated at about 2000 MW max power. But you don't want to operate it at that power level because the losses are too high and there is no reserve capacity in the line to handle the first contingency problem. Therefore I will estimate we will load the new 500 kV lines to about 1500 MW on average. So we have 80,000 MW of renewable sources widely scattered around the Western System (WECC) with each carrying 1500 MW so that we need roughly 50 new 500 kV lines of 500 miles each, for a total length of 25,000 miles. The article assumes there is little solar power energy storage and it also assumes the wind be blowing at night. We know for sure that the solar power is not available at night so we are nearly totally dependent on wind for night time energy. You are going to ask about the geothermal energy. One geothermal project I recently worked on for determining the transmission access for looked like a good project until the geothermal energy extraction failed to work. Recently other geothermal projects have created human induced earthquakes. Geothermal energy seem less likely today than just a few years ago. So we are nearly totally dependent on wind energy for the nighttime CA energy as envisioned in the 100% renewables by 2030. If we plan for those few occurrences when there is no wind in the WECC system, we must interconnect WECC with the rest of the US so CA can draw power from other wind generators that do have wind (hopefully) outside the WECC area, such as the Texas coast and east of the rocky mountains where massive wind farms can be constructed. However we will need at least 40,000 MW of lines that I estimate will average 2000 miles in length. If we used 500 kV lines, we would need about 25 of these lines bridging from WECC to the US eastern grid and ERCOT and the total length would be about 50,000 miles. By 2030 we would need 75,000 miles of new 500 kV lines just to serve California with 100% renewables. Considering that we have the period from 2010 to 2030, that means we would have to construct about 4000 miles of new 500 kV lines every year from now until 2030 for the renewables plan as outlined in this article to work. I do not believe this is achievable at all. Therefore the concept envisioned in the SA article is not a workable plan because the transmission problems have not been addressed. The lines arent going to get built. The wind is not going to interconnect. The SA article plan is not even a desirable plan. The environmental impact and cost would be horrendous. Lets get realistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy profession I do transmission studies for wind and solar clients. My company name is TAC meaning Transmission Adequacy Consulting at web page http://www.egpreston.com. I currently am doing studies all across the US. "A path to sustainable energy by 2030" omits the transmission system needed by 2030. Because the wind and solar and water and geothermal projects are not in the locations of the existing power plants, new lines will be needed. Looking at the graph on page 63, and carefully measuring scales on the graph, I estimate that there is 40,000 MW of wind and 40,000 MW of centralized solar on that graph. The reason I omitted rooftop solar is because Jacobson has its contribution to be rather small. For example, multiplying out the numbers on page 61 you will get 5.1 TW of rooftop solar and 26.7 TW of large scale solar of 300 MW size in farms, much like wind farms. This seems reasonable since centralized solar is twice as cost effective as rooftop solar. Since the rooftop solar is small I will omit it from these comments. That leaves us needing 80,000 MW of new wind solar and geothermal generation just to serve California. I think an estimate of 500 miles from wind and solar resources to major load centers is reasonable. A 500 kV transmission line is rated at about 2000 MW max power. But you don't want to operate it at that power level because the losses are too high and there is no reserve capacity in the line to handle the first contingency problem. Therefore I will estimate we will load the new 500 kV lines to about 1500 MW on average. So we have 80,000 MW of renewable sources widely scattered around the Western System (WECC) with each carrying 1500 MW so that we need roughly 50 new 500 kV lines of 500 miles each, for a total length of 25,000 miles. The article assumes there is little solar power energy storage and it also assumes the wind be blowing at night. We know for sure that the solar power is not available at night so we are nearly totally dependent on wind for night time energy. You are going to ask about the geothermal energy. One geothermal project I recently worked on for determining the transmission access for looked like a good project until the geothermal energy extraction failed to work. Recently other geothermal projects have created human induced earthquakes. Geothermal energy seem less likely today than just a few years ago. So we are nearly totally dependent on wind energy for the nighttime CA energy as envisioned in the 100% renewables by 2030. If we plan for those few occurrences when there is no wind in the WECC system, we must interconnect WECC with the rest of the US so CA can draw power from other wind generators that do have wind (hopefully) outside the WECC area, such as the Texas coast and east of the rocky mountains where massive wind farms can be constructed. However we will need at least 40,000 MW of lines that I estimate will average 2000 miles in length. If we used 500 kV lines, we would need about 25 of these lines bridging from WECC to the US eastern grid and ERCOT and the total length would be about 50,000 miles. By 2030 we would need 75,000 miles of new 500 kV lines just to serve California with 100% renewables. Considering that we have the period from 2010 to 2030, that means we would have to construct about 4000 miles of new 500 kV lines every year from now until 2030 for the renewables plan as outlined in this article to work. I do not believe this is achievable at all. Therefore the concept envisioned in the SA article is not a workable plan because the transmission problems have not been addressed. The lines arent going to get built. The wind is not going to interconnect. The SA article plan is not even a desirable plan. The environmental impact and cost would be horrendous. Lets get realistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry for the three postings. I didn't realize it had posted the first time...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr Preston
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you give us a cost estimate for those lines!!!
Note that the 2500 nuclear plants would I recommend would be so close to load centers that almost no trunk type transmission lines would be needed. Co-generation where the waste heat from electricity generation was used for space heating, would also be possible.
Smaller towns could use smaller Toshiba IFR's or Hyperion units co-generation units for electricity and town heating.
Do all we think about is producing more. So much of the energy we use is wasted. Many studies show reducing what we use through efficiency is less costly than producing more. What is the maintenance on insulation in a building? If installed correctly it should last the life of the building. It is better for the environment and puts people to work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIm not saying we should not do renewables just a good mix with efficiency.
Andy
Sethdayal, dwbd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan do they get riled when proven wrong ;^D
---There have been no nuclear plants built in the US in years. Quotes? estimates? The Finnish plant is a first of a kind. How much do you think the first Chevy Volt is going to cost to build?
My quote was for 4 nukes to be built in Fla as other US recent bids and the Finnish. one now being finished, deal with it. Please show one bid nuke in the US under that?
I said with future 4.0 nuke it could change. But one can't compare nukes built in India, China with those built in the west as subsidies, $1/hr labor and who knows what else is not included. For instance your Hyperion figures only includes the heat source, not the generators, condensers, turbines, land, containment, etc or paying again in 5 yrs for another heat source. Nor do you put anything in for fuel increases. I stand by what I said as it's based on the latest US nukes. If wind, CSP, etc is built in china, India they too would be far cheaper, a fact you leave out like many others.
As far as EV's, the Volt is not one. Better light, aero EV's done in composites can be built for far less. A 2 seat 80mph, 100 mile range EV sportwagon can be built, sold in the US for under $12k in mass production. I have one that gets 250mpg equivalent and a Harley size Trike MC EV that gets 600mpge. Check out in 5 yrs for the real EV prices once they have competition.
----With your wind/solar/tidal figures you seem to have a problem relating peak costs to average. The US solar roof top and wind peak to annual average ratio is about 10%. Multiple your numbers by ten.
Again you assume and don't know what you are talking about. Wind is around 35% cap factor, not 10% and x's 3 is still under $4k/kw, far lower than nuke or coal and no fuel costs.
CSP solar can store heat for later generation or heating besides the fact that solar happens when peak power is needed vs nukes that can't be turned off.
River/tidal is baseline constant power, only $1k/kw for river, extra for tidal so different units in different areas can make constant power as tides are different depending on location. Deal with it. That is far below even your touted Chinese nukes.
dwbd My EV's are EV's and get 100wthrs/mile and 30wthrs/mile. Making that from a home wind or CSP solar is 60+ eff. Deal with it. You seem to forget an ICE costs too. My EV will cost under $12k in mass production using forklift tech and lead batteries. Soon lithium batts will be as cheap and it will get 300 mile range.
Added most of my units are home sized as the customers save, make the money. Since their costs are 2x's utilities for power, they save twice as much. Since they have no land, transmission line, overhead or stockholder costs they are far more cost effective than nukes, even Chinese. Why you rather be held hostage to a power company for your energy and pay far more is beyond me. Remember fuel/generation is only 1/2 your bill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo sethdayal, dwbd try to be a little more credible by not mixing apples and oranges or countries especially 3rd world and first. If you are going to compare Chinese nukes, compare Chinese wind which is only $.5k/kw or less. But that wouldn't make your point, in fact prove you wrong as RE is both cheaper and far faster to install so beats nukes easily.
Nukes or any constant/base source can't be used for more than 50% and in the US that can be done far cheaper with kinetic hydro river/tidal power than nuke.
And include all costs, not cherry pick and leave out things like turbines, generators, fuel, fuel increases, etc. And please move next to a Chinese nuke. I hear glowing is in now.
Though your posts were good for a laugh ;^D
Probably about 2 million dollars per mile. Also, the 500 miles was just an estimate. If you have specific projects in mind that eliminates some of the uncertainty in estimating costs. For example the distances might be less to wind generators. However I suspect that opposition to the wind generators unsightlyness and opposition to power lines will result in longer pats for lines zig zagging around the countryside and the wind generators being not allowed anywhere on the coast, so I understand that Mexico is the desirable place for wind. But if you were to string out 40,000 MW of wind, I bet you would find the 500 miles was not that bad a guestimate after all. The first few sites might be closer to load centers, but opposition is likely to drive them farther away. The construction time for lines is mostly how long it takes to get all the ROW and get approval to build the lines. How many years will a line be held up in hearings? Add one year to that number of years and you have roughtly the time it takes to build a new line. Now try to build new lines across the Rockies and see how long that will take - decades I predict, if ever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou imply that aircraft can run on hydrogen, directly from WWS power, or from fuel cells. To your knowledge, have there been actual test flights of a hydrogen fueled plane, even a small one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerry, Jerry, Jerry you really should learn a bit about a subject before you beak off stupidly. Now Im going to have to give you another woopin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this&But one can't compare nukes built in India, China with those built in the west as subsidies&. If you are going to compare Chinese nukes, compare Chinese wind which is only $.5k/kw or less&
You said it. Chinese Wind Turbines USD$1.8M for 1080 kwpk, FOB china. About the same price as GE American made Wind Turbines @ $2,000 per kwpk. See:
http://www.chinabestproducts.com/generator/generator.htm
Only a 2 yr warranty, though. Good luck when it breaks down, just order up that $100,000 minimum charge crane to do your repairs. Nuclear Power plants in the USA, were coming in at an average of $1100 per kwe with Quad Cities 1800 MWe coming it at $680 per kwe, thats in 2007 dollars!! It was only your buddies in NG & Coal who had the NRC (Nuclear Rejection Commission) instated, that put a stop to that. Learn about that crime here:
http://depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
&Wind is around 35% cap factor, not 10% and x's 3 is still under $4k/kw, far lower than nuke or coal and no fuel costs& CSP solar can store heat for later generation or heating besides the fact that solar happens when peak power is needed vs nukes that can't be turned off&.
Actually avg. Wind Capacity factor was 23.5% in the USA, 2008 and 24.5% in the World. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Solar is typically in the 10-20% range, including CSP. Yes CSP can store its heat in molten salt, but that is expensive and efficiency drops, actually reduces capacity factor of the Solar Collection section. Learn about Solar Thermal here, Jerry:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/31/solar-thermal-questions/
&Thus capital cost per gross kW delivered on average (as distinct from peak) from solar thermal plant would be over 7.5 times as great as for coal including fuel. (See Trainer, 2007, Chapter 3.)&
Your Solar Program has failed miserbly in Germany, Jerry. Their Solar program, by 2013 it is expected to be 1375 MW avg. Which will cost the German taxpayer US$113 billion, thats $82,000 per kw avg. See:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/09/germany-crunched-by-the-numbers/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this&For instance your Hyperion figures only includes the heat source, not the generators, condensers, turbines, land, containment, etc or paying again in 5 yrs&
Hey Jerry you got one right. Congratulations. But $428 per kwth for a thermal power source that can be put ANYWHERE is far cheaper than any of your Renewables could even dream of, even if they were capable of it, which of course they arent. 15 yrs before refueling is trivial compared to your 20 yr life for your Solar & Wind then scrap. Even cheap NG at current futures price of $7 per GJ is $1728 per kwth present value, @ 5% over 10 yrs. And of course, the Hyperion can simply replace the boiler in a Coal power plant, using the existing steam turbine.
&My EV's are EV's and get 100wthrs/mile and 30wthrs/mile..
Your ideas about EVs are great, and that would really help, but there is no sign that your friends in Big Oil, and the politicians that they buy will allow that to happen. Hey, Jerry welcome to the Nuclear Club great potential but will REALLY COST THE FOSSIL FUEL GANG CASH SO NOT WELCOME. Oil, Gas & Coal are big supporters of Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, Clean Coal, Biofuels etc precisely because they wont do dick to reduce their Energy Hegemony. Dont believe me, check out British Petroleum, and see how they support all the SCAMS. No mention of Electric Vehicles or Nuclear:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9024973&contentId=7046901
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/A/ALL_UK_heathrow_ADS.pdf
Jerry my friend - whats this about no references?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know. You make up the numbers as you go along!!!
Just to note the 10% efficiency is for roof top home solar and wind installations which are a lot less efficient than a commercial unit.
Run of the river power is extensively used in mountainous rainy British Columbia. Plutonics Bute inlet project provides 3000 GWh annually with an estimated project cost of $4 billion or $12000 a kw baseload equivalent. Cost to the taxpayers with Plutonics huge profit margin is $16 billion over the 40 years of the project. Most of the power is generated in the springtime snow melt and is almost worthless as a result.
3.8 million 5MW wind turbines with a footprint of only 50 square kilometers? On average, that works out to each one being about 3.6 meters away from the next ! Even allowing for a large portion being sea-based, your figure is obviously a typo or a careless calculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe National Renewable Energy Lab has a nifty wind farm area calculator (and others) at http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/calc_wind.php . It indicates that 3.8 million 5MW land-based wind turbines would have a 5844 square kilometer footprint (ie., a square measuring 76 km per side). In miles, that's 2256 square miles or a square 47.5 miles on the side.
It is not the quantity of the energy that is the problem, it is the quality. Wind and Solar power, even if extracted for free, are still 'dilute'. Imagine two flows of water, -one a narrow water fall which is very very high. The other, a very large but slow moving water flow. Even if both have the same ft-lbs of work per minute, -the first is more useful. Why? Because the high quality energy can be converted into different forms (with a loss). So we can burn gasoline and turn into moving work of car. But to concentrate energy from a dilute source requires a lot of energy itself. For more understanding search for entropy, second law of thermodynamics and carnot cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author is probably not educated and is therefore making assumptions which are incorrect.
Sanoran Triamesh
Sethdayal, Have you ever made RE? Well I have for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd at far lower rates than I said because I built my own windgenerators and tidal generators at a fraction of production cost. Like I said they are simple machines, eff, low cost and last 50+ yrs..
Google Axial flux windgenerators or Magnets4less and you can buy them for $1k/kw. I expect China builds them for less, No? Want a tidal for $2k/kw or river generator for $1k/kw let me know and I'll build you one.
As for windgenerator cap that depends on how you design it. I design mine for lower wind speeds so easily get 35% cap as most small units are.. Just larger blades and changing the alt a bit and you are there. And I make a mean variable pitch blade with no moving parts which no other one has variable pitch I know of..
Even PV is lower than US nuke or coal. Don't forget utilities double or more their cost to sell it to you doubling RE savings .
PV, CSP power is worth more because it happens at peak power needs, something nukes can't do. And CSP can be fired by wood pellets or any other fuel.
Solar Panels : Solar Panels Direct $2.38 per watt
Solar Panels $2.38 per watt Worlds Lowest Price, Buy Solar Panels at Sun Electronics ... Address: 511 NE 15th Street, Miami, FL 33132, USA ...
www.sunelec.com/index.html
I guess you are just too lazy to look for anything that might blow your bubble. Deal with it.
dbwd, you couldn't whoop a wet noodle ;^D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Jerry you got one right. Congratulations. But $428 per kwth for a thermal power source that can be put ANYWHERE is far cheaper than any of your Renewables could even dream of, even if they were capable of it, which of course they arent. 15 yrs before refueling is trivial compared to your 20 yr life for your Solar & Wind then scrap. Even cheap NG at current futures price of $7 per GJ is $1728 per kwth present value, @ 5% over 10 yrs. And of course, the Hyperion can simply replace the boiler in a Coal power plant, using the existing steam turbine.
You still won't compare like to like I see. A heat source is not a generator!! And fuel is only 1/4 of your electric bill. And they don't last 15 yrs, they last 5 according to Hyperion's website. That cuts it by 3x's. Next converting it to electric cuts it by 3x's again!! So that's 9x's $428 or about $4k/kw and you haven't bought the plant yet!! And in 5 yrs you/ll have to pay that again! Like I said you like to leave little details out, Yes I got you ;^D
And my CSP and windgens, river/tidal units last 50 yrs+. A wind gen on the north pole by Admiral Byrd in 1919?, they just put on new blades and brushes and it worked!!
See my post to Sethdayal for your other RE facts getting destroyed.. Unlike you, I live in the real world actually doing these, not an armchair ranter like you 2 seem to be. Nor do I want to be held hostage to anyone for my energy especially when I can do my own far cheaper or buy production units cheaper and sell it for income. I'd rather be the hunter, not the hunted like you 2.
Lead battery storage is only $100/kwkr and can pay for itself with peak power sales, making it no cost, thus RE is 24/7. I'd use thermal oil and iron to store heat at high eff cheaply.
And a nuke close enough to a city to use the heat is a bad joke. It won't be done here.
Personally I don't care what others have screwed up or your biased, cherry picking websites. I know from personal experience in building, using RE and from my work at composite, boat, EV building, aero/hydro/thermodynamic experience, I know how to produce them and what they will cost. And for people, RE is by far the low cost energy source. Deal with it. Consider yourself whooped ;^D
Why no mention of fusion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recently visited the Jet fusion laboratory in Culham near Oxford, England, which is doing research supported by the USA and many european countries; two statements particularly stick in my mind:
"The physics is finished; we're now working on the engineering" - and indeed, although some materials science was happening, a lot of effort was going into practicing robotic maintenance;
"Society can have fusion whenever it decides it wants it" - so little money is going into fusion that it will take 30 years to build the first demonstration plant (the new ITER plant should produce 10 times more energy than it consumes but is not designed to be a power plant).
Using fusion would allow us to keep using energy without warming the planet; this is now urgent. The energy isn't dependent on the weather and we can use it without guilt. Why aren't we pushing much harder for this - is it just that environmentalists would rather we didn't use the energy at all?
For me, this was a very disappointing article. By the authors' own admission, the biggest challenge to solar/wind power is that it is intermittent. However, the counter-arguments they give in support, e.g. it might be windy somewhere else, are trite and completely unconvincing. For many countries, solar power is essentially irrelevant in winter (due to low altitude of the sun in the sky and shorter hours of daylight, not to mention clouds). For these countries, it is also not unusual for a high pressure system (perhaps several hundred miles across) to sit on top of the entire country for a week, maybe two weeks, producing little or no winds. These are times of maximum power requirement (for heating) but according to the authors' model, 90% of the energy supply would then be unavailable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what happens then? - vast energy storage systems using some as yet uninvented (and uncosted) technology? Huge transnational energy transmission systems (also uncosted)? - but would you really allow other countries to plunge you into darkness at the flick of a switch
Given these deficiencies, I suspect that the authors' main results on costings are completely unreliable.
I try to remain open-minded on these issues, but you have to be sceptical when you read stuff of this poor quality.
We are confused because all these people can think of is the millions of megawatts we think we need. Everybody stubbornly refuses to think small. My wife and I live very well with an off grid solar system that gives us a very frugal 3.4 kWh per day on average. The cost of our system is A$24,000, which translates to a quarterly bill of A$300 if we assume a 20 years life. Granted, this is expensive power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we had power connected, our quarterly bill wound be only A$51 with the current cost of energy in Australia.
Why are we doing this? Mainly because we like it here, and also because the cost of the connection would have been... A$24,000. We can do without the bills!
Maybe part of the solution would be to persuade you lot (Americans) that it is perfectly OK to live with 3.4 kWh per day. Another part is that a large number of small systems all interconnected would be a beautiful thing. Firstly, off my A$24,000, the battery alone costs A$9,500. Secondly, think of the power of the Internet compared to even the biggest mainframe computer on our planet. For our planet's sake start thinking small!!
Jerry Says: ..A heat source is not a generator..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo. I guess youve havent heard but CONCENTRATED, RELIABLE, LOCATE ANYWHERE heat sources are in big demand. Some examples, Northern communities district heating, Desalination plants, Tar Sands Oil Extraction, Industrial Process Heat. You dont have ANY renewables that can do that job. And Nuclear CHP works great. They do it for District Heating in Lithuania, Switzerland & Russia. Taking NG @ a forecast price of $7 per GJ, and using a 5%, 10 year bond to finance the NG purchases, that yields a Present Value of $121 million, fuel cost. Taking Coal @ a delivered price of $50 per ton, that would be $43 million fuel cost, not including delivery to a remote location and cost of the thermal plant, vs $30 million for the Hyperion.
Jerry Says: ..And they don't last 15 yrs, they last 5 according to Hyperion's website. That cuts it by 3x's. Next converting it to electric cuts it by 3x's again!! So that's 9x's $428 or about $4k/kw and you haven't bought the plant yet!! And in 5 yrs you/ll have to pay that again&
Utter Nonsense. First off, Hyperions first model lasts 7-10 yrs, before refueling, as their website says. But there is many things they can improve to get 15 yrs before refueling, including using some Deuterium instead of H2, using Thorium Hydride & spent LWR fuel plutonium, a larger fuel supply or higher enrichment level. It is expected that newer models will achieve at least 15 yrs before refueling. Its called improving on a good basic design, maybe youve heard of that. Thats how USA LWRs increased production by 171 TWh per year, from 2007 to 1997 WITHOUT A SINGLE NEW PLANT COMING ONLINE! Compare with total geothermal, tidal, wind & solar 2006 of 44 TWh!
Secondly, refueling doesnt mean buying a new plant, Jerry, DUH! They refuel reactors every day, around the World. They dont trash the plant just because they have to refuel. It just is convenient with a light, small power module (hot tub sized), transportable by truck, rail or ship to return to factory for refueling, rather than onsite refueling for obvious reasons. And fuel costs only � cent a kWh for standard LWRs. Some small reactors like the Toshiba 4S (10MWe) go 30 yrs without refueling or the Travelling Wave Reactor could go 100 yrs before refueling.
So the cost of Hyperion is $30 million for 25MWe = $1200 per kwe plus the small cost of refueling every 10-15 yrs, as needed. And of course the added steam turbine, which is only worth maybe $700 per kwe, so youre still under $2000 per kwe, and half that if you use CHP (very convenient in many locations). You cant even come close to that with your Renewables.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerry Says: .. And my CSP and windgens, river/tidal units last 50 yrs+. A wind gen on the north pole by Admiral Byrd in 1919?, they just put on new blades and brushes and it worked!..
Yeah, I bet they do how do you know? So a mickey mouse dc generator with blades on it still works from 1919. Just like any electric generator will do. SO!?! Why do they only have 2 yr warranties? The big, efficient, most cost effective Wind Turbines dont appear to last beyond 17 to 20 yrs, without major expensive overhauls. They seem to just scrap them at that point. See, one of many examples of an abandoned Wind Farms:
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/4146
And river, tidal is a joke. Its hard enough, nowadays to compete with hydro, never mind river & tidal. High tidal flow rates of 2.5 m/sec will generate as much power due to the energy of the flowing water as a dam with a head of a MEAGRE 1/4 METRE!! The real energy in water is in HEAD not VELOCITY OF FLOW. Thus even run-of-the-river and realistic tidal plants, like Annapolis Royal use water head to supply energy, not water flow!
Jerry Says &. Nor do I want to be held hostage to anyone for my energy especially when I can do my own far cheaper or buy production units cheaper and sell it for income. I'd rather be the hunter, not the hunted like you&
Woopedy Fkin Do. So youre a do-it-yourselfer. Thats great, but it doesnt mean dick in the urgent need to get off of fossil fuels. Most people live in apartments, and cant do zip, even if they wanted to. And cant afford to buy a used car, never mind spend 10s of thousands on Solar Panels they have no place to put. And most people cant even program a VCR, or fix a leaky faucet so how how are you going to solve the climate/peak oil crisis like that, Jerry? And all you are doing is replacing the 1.6 kwavg that you consume at home, you are not doing zip about the rest of your share of the energy pie of 11 kwavg per person. Thats the energy consumed to produce the food you eat, the vehicle you drive, your schools, hospitals, infrastructure, police, military and manufacturing. Try running that on your expensive renewables and our civilization will collapse.
Hi Dr Green, Wind turbine blades may be different from aircraft wings, but they have a lot in common. Your engineering approach will still entail a careful assessment of the stress regime and how you propose to satisfy it and with what. Perhaps propeller is a better simile. I agree that vertical axis are much less efficient than horizontal, but what output they have is less sensitive to wind speed if they are a drag propelled device rather than a lift device. A drag device would be less affected by wake interference . When you increase the scale of wind turbines in search of further efficiency you become limited by tip speed ( either from noise or stress, or both ) This means that the angular speed of the turbine gets slower and requires more gearing up to produce an efficient electrical output, or more poles of expensive permanent magnets in the rotor. Consider a structure like a cooling tower made of galvanised steel blades resting on a rigid ring at the base. The ring rotates at the speed of the turbine which is a little less than the wind speed ( so much less harmful to wildlife and quieter.)Several standard generators take power from the ring and as the ring is going faster than the hub of a comparable HWAT, require less gearing up. They need not all be generating at the lower speeds giving a large measure of back up and redundancy. All parts with close relative movement are at ground level, and many can be serviced and / or replaced whilst the machine is running. I accept that your industry realises that cost per unit of electricity produced is the key measure, but large HWATs look well into the realm of diminishing returns and unlikely to get down to �500 per kilowatt capacity. Big dumb VAWTs might just do it as they produce at wind speeds the HWATs shut down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the energy output of the renewable sources shown (Wind, Solar, Water) are looked at a Thermo economic level, it looks to me that it takes more energy (economic cost) than you can get out of these systems. Maybe technology will solve some of this eventually, but why not let Fossil fuels let themselves burn out and eliminate waste heat and carbon output on their own by the end of the century? These systems, along with peoples jobs, are already set up and working. Government forcing renewables, through higher taxes, which may or may not succeed, is a play into more non-local, non-sustainable systems. Just let things happen at a more sustainable pace. I cringe at the thought of eliminating beautiful southwestern deserts with ugly solar panels and maintenance roads. Just turn off the lights!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerry Says: &.And a nuke close enough to a city to use the heat is a bad joke. It won't be done here&
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsence. They send geothermal heat 60 kms in Iceland over insulated pipes. And they do it with Nuclear in Switzerland, Lithuania & Russia. No problem.
Jerry Says: &Google Axial flux windgenerators or Magnets4less and you can buy them for $1k/kw &for lower wind speeds so easily get 35% cap as most small units are.. &
More like $1450 per kwpk, plus shipping plus controller plus batteries plus installation. Lucky if you get 10% Capacity factor, which pushes you up to more like $20,000 per kwavg ( if you have a good site) for unreliable, intermittent energy. A very cheap Chinese Wind Turbine, 20 kw. $2k/kwpk for Turbine. $1.1k/kwpk for grid-tie controller. Add 7 hrs pk GOOD batteries @ $300 per kWh and a REALLY GOOD 25% Capacity Factor and youre up to $21k/kwavg which still needs fossil fuel backup for lulls in Wind Energy and youll mostly burn fossil fuels for energy. A TOTAL LOSER!
A REAL STUDY of small Wind Turbines in England:
http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Interim+Report+August+2008.pdf
found actual Capacity Factors to be an astounding AVERAGE OF 2.7%, with top of 10.3% and 2nd best of 4.4%.
Jerry Says: &I design mine for lower wind .. Just larger blades and changing the alt a bit and you are there. And I make a mean variable pitch .. no other one has variable pitch I know of&
Wind Energy varies as the Cube of Wind Speed, so there just isnt much energy at low speeds, no matter how you change the blade design. Wind Turbine output is typically 26% of rated at a brisk 7.5 m/sec or 16.8 mph wind. And Wind Energy typically increases by 2.3X going from 30m hub height to 80m hub height. The fact is the Wind Turbine business is highly competetive and big bucks. Really good engineers and scientists design these things, using computer models, wind tunnels and loads of field trials. They do a really good job, trying to get energy from a pathetically feeble energy source. According to Jerry, they dont know dick. Jerry gets 35% CF, which even the big turbines rarely get. Jerry says, they just need larger blades..So thats the solution, fire all those high priced, top engineers and scientists and just hire Jerry! Problem Solved!
Jerry Says: &Even PV is lower than US nuke or coal&
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf PV is lower than Nuclear or Coal, why do they need subsidies of 40 to 80 cents a kWh to sell the crap. Germany with it's 15 yrs of massive subsidies, in 2006 only got 4.8% of its electricity from Wind and 0.35% from Solar. 47.5% from filthy Coal.
Jerry Says: &PV, CSP power is worth more because it happens at peak power needs, something nukes can't do&
Wrong. The Utility peak is at 5pm and continues through 8 pm or more on hot summer days. Los Angelos @ 5 pm Solar is down to 20% of rated output & 3% by 6pm in June even. Nuclear can quite happily load follow, it just pays to run them full out, if possible. PV & CSP still has to be backed up by Utility Fossil Fuel power plants, and that cost is born by the Taxpayer or Utility Customer. PV & CSP suppliers get a freebie on that.
Jerry Says: &Solar Panels : Solar Panels Direct $2.38 per watt&
Those are indeed excellent prices on Solar PV. But - $2.38 per pkwatt + $.40 shipping + $.64 per watt for grid-tie inverter + 2$ installation = $5.42 per pk watt. Los Angeles (excellent location), 1470 AC kWh/yr per pk watt or 167 watts avg per pk watt. Thus $5.41/.167 = $32,000 per avg kw. And thats only if you dont have buildings or trees blocking direct sunlight. And you still need utility backup fossil fuel generation. A TOTAL LOSER! First-of-a-kind Nuclear coming in at $4k/avgkw USA. Could easily drop to $1k/avgkw with Factory production and good supply chains & manufacturing skill established. And get rid of the Fossil Fuel Lobbys NRC cronies.
Abandoned Wind, Solar CSP, Solar PV & Geothermal power plants. According to Jerry, thats impossible:
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
The comments by others have pretty much shot a lot of holes in the plan, particularly wind power. I have but two comments/questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article suggests 3.8 million wind turbines would require 50 square kilometers or 141 square feet. Joe Shuster in Fossil Fools suggests that a 1.65Mw(260 ft dia bladea) turbine would require an area 2600 by 780 feet (46 acres). So I'm confused, Shuster claim each turbine needs 3 x the diameter of the blades to the side and 10 x front to back in order to prevent turbulence interference between turbines. So my question is who is closer to the truth. 141 sqft seem much to small and 46 acres seems a bit to large.
Second, what about parabolic solar generators using Stirling engines on the line of SES Sun Catcher? The technology is available now, is scalable iI believe and since the amount of solar available is significantly more that all other energy sources efficiency isn't the prime concern. Of course the electricity would be used to generate hydrogen for fuel as well as electricity. Seems like a no-brainer to me but I'm sure there are those that can shoot holes in the idea. Read this article before you attact the idea if you would.
http://www.physorg.com/news170326193.html
Thanks,
David
dwbd, you are a sad man trying desperately to prove your point by distorting my data and your own. But boy you get riled when proven wrong ;^P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain you are just an armchair ranter believe the biased data you find on the web vs me who actually do these. Trying to compare German solar which is north of Maine with your strange way of calculating costs is sad. Then comparing Iceland which has unlimited power to waste as eff is sad.
You description of a 'Micky Mouse generator' with blades will easily work for many decades, just proves my point that they are simple, long lasting energy sources.
Saying Hyperion last 15yrs when the website plainly says 5 yrs. Tsk, Tsk!!
But you are not worth arguing with. Good luck as you'll need it as the utility company bends you over. The smart ones will have their own RE units or buy a share in a commercial one for RE at far lower prices than your precious nukes. Deal with it.
Hi David, Yes the authors have been disingenuous to say the least. They have takenthe area of the foundations alone as their measure. Even this is wrong because these machines require access roads capable of bearing the heavy machinery that would be needed in the case of a major repair. Even if the developer didn't want to build the roads, the insurance company covering them would probably insist. Per turbine you are then talking about a further 1000 m^2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhilst parabolic reflectors heating stirling engines could be scaled up to some extent, limiting factors start to come in to play. The radiators that are essential to cool the stirling engine become more difficult to arrange, without a large source of disposable water.
Neodymium is not jusr used in gearboxes in wind turbines, but it is a key component of an alloy used to make high-power lightweight magnets in generators for wind turbines. It is also used in elctric motrs for cars. Without Neodymium, then the generators and motors would need to be much larger, both in volume and weight. 3.8 Million wind turbines will need a lot of Neodymium and so will the fleet of cars made to run using electric motors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina does not have the resources for rare earth metals nearly as much as they OWN and CONTROL the resources, which are found in other places in the world, mainly in Africa.
demyhr,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this46 acres for each turbine is probably closer, but also still shy of the actual requirement. Recall that the article said 5MW turbines, not 1.65MW (with what you claim, only a 260 blade span). An acre is ~208 feet x ~208 feet, but let's calculate using the SI metric system, since the claim was "less than 50 square kilometers" for 3.8 million wind turbines. One square kilometer is exactly 100 hectares and one hectare is exactly 100 meters x 100 meters (1,000,000 square meters km-1).
If we assume that a 5 MW turbine could be made with let's say a 100 meter blade span (~328 feet), that wind can blow from any direction at any time, and that turbines need 10x the blade span to avoid turbulence from other turbines in the area, then each of theses types of turbine should require 1 square kilometer each (1,000 meters x 1,000 meters, or 100 hectares each). This would mean 3.8 million square kilometers (that's 247 acrea a piece). BTW, 3.8 million x 46 acres = ~707,391 square kilometers.
There are, however, different designs for wind turbines, verticle axis wind turbines, for instance, that have smaller foot prints than conventional horizontal axis wind turbines. These could require substantially less area, but I think it still unlikely that 3.8 million of even these types of turbines could be placed on area of only 50 square kilometers.
3.8 million divided by 5000 hectares (100 hectares km-1) would be 760 turbines ha-1. This is outrageously dense for 5MW turbines! Even if the authors meant an area 50 kilometers by 50 kilometers, which is 250,000 hectares, then it is still 15.2 turbines per hectare (one hectare is 100 m x 100m or ~328 feet x ~328 feet). If the turbines are vertical axis turbines, then maybe this could be possible. The turbines would need to be ~25.6 meters apart (~85 feet).
I had high hopes for this article, but I cannot agree with the calculations. It makes me wich that Scientific American was a peer-reviewed journal (peers for these authors might be easy to find in middle schools).
SKB
The authors failed to consider, ultra local, shallow depth geothermal energy. Domesitic heating and air conditioning accounts for 1/2 of ALL energy consumption. Shallow depth (~2. meters, or 8 foot) loops of tubing, and the use of hydronic heat pumps, can supply all of the heat and air cooling required for any home in just about any climate at ~25% of the cost (in electricity to run the heat pump) vs the cost of conventional fossil fuel heating (natrual gas) and elctricity for conventional air conditioning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the far more potent geothermal energy resource that should be utilized to reduce consumtion of fossil carbon fuels.
SKB
Neodymium an copper for the magnets and windings in light weight motors used in a new fleet of all elctric cars, plus lithium used in batteires and platinum used in EPM fuel cells may all become very hard rare earths to supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind and solar energy can be used to convert elctric power into stored energy in Hydrogen gas-H2 by using the elctricity to perform electrolysis of water. Hydrogen gas-H2 can be liquified to reduce storage volume and increase energy density per colume and then this can be used to fuel conventional internal combustion engines. BMW does this now.
These authors seem to only think in certain directions and they ignore the difficulties of creating a demand for rare earth metals that could easily outstrip existing supplies.
SKB
scots, the SunCatcher web site claims the lowest water use of all the solar options (22 acre feet per year for a 500MW system). It has a very small footprint compared to wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskbarry, clearly 50 sqkM is a ridiculous estimate. The real question is do the acceptable wind turbine site candidates have enough area to support the number of wind turbines necessary to supply terawatts of power? I hadn't considered the rotational factor which makes the footprint basically a square unless the turbines are limited to facing the prevailing winds of the site.
The discussion of depletion of resources brings up the question, although not exactly on topic, can anyone point to some reliable sources of information on natural resources in general and the impending depletion thereof? Are there other resources besides oil we are in danger of using up in the near future? And what are the political aspects of many natural sources, who controls them and will they be made available to only a select few?
Thanks,
David
I don't think that any of the proposals put forward in this article will get past the wishful thinking stage given the present economic situation. This combined with environmental concerns, politics, planning regulations and good old fashioned nimbyism will combine to keep this particular future in the realm of science fiction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is just a proposition using technology that is either just at the prototype stage or hasn't even reached that far yet. The numbers for produced energy are quite unrealistic given our present experience with wind and solar power but I suppose this is where all that new technology that is still on the drawing boards comes in.
Other costs which aren't mentioned are the thousands of miles of new transmission lines needed to connect this now very widely distributed system of energy generation. The rail system would also have to be electrified at a cost which would essentially be the same as replacing it in it's entirety.
Another concern is just how long do these wind turbines, solar plants and tidal power stations last? The only numbers for wind turbines I can find suggest 20 years after which you get to buy it again. Do solar panels gradually deteriorate in sunlight? Will tidal power stations silt up as tidal forces do move a lot of material around?
Why do all these renewable forms of "free" energy need so much money in the form of subsidies to be economically viable with conventional energy? In the end there just may not be enough money to go around which, given present circumstances, is much more likely.
Compare the Hyperion nuclear reactor to the latest large wind and solar projects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHyperion:
A hot tub sized $30 million including steam turbine/generator reactor, 72 megawatts thermal, 27 megawatts electric, $1400 a kilowatt. The American built reactor can provide heat and power to small communities, oil shale/sands and other industry needs. Every 7 to years, it needs to be returned to the factory and refueled. It produces a softball sized piece of nuclear waste that can be burned in a Gen IV reactor. Hyperion Power Generation claims 122 potential users have signed options to buy for 2013 delivery and a quarter of them are in the U.S.
Shenyang Power Group:
240 massive Chinese built 2.5-megawatt wind turbines on a 56 sq mile farm in West Texas Chinese financed for $1.5 billion. That's 600 megawatts peak , 125 megawatts average, $12000 kilowatt baseload eqv , 450 sq miles a gigawatt, but doesn't include storage, transmission line builds, and hundreds of millions annually in natural gas required for load balancing.
Same energy as two Hyperion units or electric power as five for between 10 and 25 times the cost. Hyperion units could be carried on a semi and be buried under a bunkhouse - wind 55 sq miles of land, concrete, roads and steel.
Florida Power:
Arcadia Fl, 180 acres of solar panels, the largest solar photovoltaic plant in the country, 42,000 megawatt-hours annually, 25-megawatt peak, 4.7 megawatts baseload equivalent, cost $150 million
Same energy as 5% of a Hyperion unit or electric power of 15% of one for 5 times the cost. Hyperion units could be carried on a flatbed and fit underneath a tool shed, solar 180 acres arsenic,steel and concrete.
One hot tub size nuke is as on an energy equivalent basis 1% of the cost of solar, and 4% the cost of wind, and a tiny percentage of land,steel and concrete of either.
Wind and solar are the fuzzy/wuzzies and sunbeams of the energy industry, they make you feel warm and righteous while dancing us down the road to the as little as ten years away climate driven economic and even civilization collapse.
The nuclear industry with a $2.5 trillion investment in nuclear power, paid for by quickly weaning us off the $1 trillion we spend annually on fossil fuels could with a World War Two scale effort save us. Sadly the current crop of politicians driven by Big Oil campaign donations and folks converted to the new age renewable religion seem determined to drive us over the precipice.
Most of you seem to missing the point of the article. For roughly $100 trillion (give or take a few trillion), you can put in place renewable energy generation that will power the entire worlds energy needs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen three alternatives in the comments on this article. 1. use nukes --- I suppose this would work, but I suspect the cost is much higher and the risk is not worth it when the RE option is available. 2. Use fossil fuels until they run out an not worry about it until then---I suspect this will really be unpleasant. 3. Everyone stop using so much energy and live like we used to back in the stone age---we'll get there after #2.
And the rest of you argueing about the amount of land all of the wind turbines will take -- who care no matter how you look at it, the land is not the problem.
And as for the intermitency, just keep building the RE power plants and a few storage facilities until you've got so much capacity, you don't have to worry about intermitency. Until then, fossil fuels will still be around and will be dirt cheap (except for the huge carbon tax) so they can pick up the slack.
Why must Americans pick winners and losers? Why not let the market decide (with carbon taxes if necessary)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHyperion Nuclear Power Generation systems are very cool!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am new to the energy field, and I very much wanted this to be a believable article, but I own a calculator, and the figures on p. 61 just don't compute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3.8 million wind turbines at 5 MW each should be 19 terawatts, almost double the total 'goal' of 11.5 terawatts the authors have in mind. 1.7 billion PV systems at 3 KW each should be 5.1 terawatts, alone more than the 4.6 they have slated for all things 'solar.' And 89,000 solar plants at 300 MW each would yield almost 27 terawatts.
I suppose these observations suggest that we can accomplish the authors' goals more easily than even they thought. (And these numbers should have a bearing on the debates above about the physical area the authors have said that wind turbines would take up.) But since this is not my field, the basic computing errors in this article were enough to destroy my confidence in anything true they might have said.
I 99% if not 100% agree with you, algae is far cheaper since it dies not require expensive or intense labor to grow, it grows naturally and way easily. The problem now is that the companies are looking at what we consider or eat as energy/oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to realize that the market/users/buyers don't always go for the "environment friendly" but for the cheaper alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood article. The U. S. is fortunate to have good solar and wind resources. I suspect that more expensive nuclear energy will be used in countries or areas where wind and solar are not available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernments will have to tax fossil fuels to the extent of the damage they cause. The free enterprise smart money will determine the most efficient mix of conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. Much of the fossil tax would need to be rebated equally to each individual so as not to be a regressive tax. The cost will be very small compared to damages caused by fossil fuels.
I believe legislation should be written and presented for consideration, which bans the building of new coal-fired power plants and requires that coal plants be rebuilt in 10 years to promote safety.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSethdyal wrote,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHyperion:
A hot tub sized $30 million including steam turbine/generator reactor, 72 megawatts thermal, 27 megawatts electric, $1400 a kilowatt. The American built reactor can provide heat and power to small communities, oil shale/sands and other industry needs. Every 7 to years, it needs to be returned to the factory and refueled. It produces a softball sized piece of nuclear waste that can be burned in a Gen IV reactor. Hyperion Power Generation claims 122 potential users have signed options to buy for 2013 delivery and a quarter of them are in the U.S.
Now, Now Sethdayal, you still scam the numbers. First where do you get your steam plant numbers? Thy complete plant not including the firebox/burners is around $2k/kw as NG plants are $3k/kw, No? So it's rather hard to believe you get the Hyperion nuke and plant for $1.4k/kw. Even dwbd admited that.
Then you compare it to a windgenerator, CSP that lasts 50 yrs. But the Nuke heat source only lasts 5 yrs according to their website. But lets take your 7 yrs. That mean you need to multiply the $30Mill by 8 for $240million or about 8x's $1.4k/kw which is $11.2k/kw for 50 yrs. Add that to the $2k/kw for the steam plant it needs is $13.2k/kw, far more than what a windsgen or solar CSP costs even the x's 3 needed to be equal in kWhrs.
Now the fact that smaller, more eff home size units save 2x's as much vs utility power cuts costs for wind, solar CSP by 50% because they alway double the cost.
Your land use on wind is a joke too as it take far less as you say because it is still used for grazing, crops, etc only needing a small pad of 100' x 100' each. So why do you put out such obvious lies? Is your position so bad you must not be honest? And smart wind, solar in home, small business sizes where it's best requires no new land as it fits on the roof or parking lot.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Hyperion but it's best where one needs the heat and no other RE resource is available. But lets not misrepresent the facts.
Good article as it brings out discussion and different view points. I work for an irrigation district in California and have been directly involved in the renewable mandates upon our State. The three main points missing from any attempt to justify solar, wind, any other variable output generator as valid renewable energy for reliable customer use are: transmission, storage, and the requirement to have firm, metal in the ground, back-up generation. Transmission is expensive and the world is full of Nimbys, only the Feds can push it through and at what cost to the ratepayer? Storage is the biggest variable, pump-hydro, again expensive and blocked at every turn by environmentalist, or battery and compressed gas are quick fixes, only hydrogen is a clean fuel that stores easily and can be used in many applications for creation of clean reliable energy, back-up generators are required until storage and associated clean generation is developed, existing generation can be modified to burn a clean fuel such as hydrogen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis piece of trash has been thoroughly torn to pieces and flushed down the sewer, where it belongs at BraveNewClimate.com & NuclearGreen.com. See:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/jacobson-delucchi-plan-revealed.html
And drcowboybc you neglected to include the low capacity factors of Wind & Solar in your calculations. Jacobson used 30% for Wind, whereas world average 2008 was 24.5% and that has to be reduced 10% for long distance transmission lines to 22% capacity factor. The bigger the Wind Build the lower the capacity factor, due to shedding of excess peaks. And further reductions due to climate change reducing the overall Wind Energy and changing the best areas for Wind Energy.
Steam for Jerry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cost of the basic Hyperion is $25 million. The cost of a CHP unit is $200 a kilowatt according to the epa or $5 million for Hyperion's 25 megawatts. Installation would be part of and wouldn't add significantly more to a Hyperion project There are a few on line for around $1 million.
http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/biomass_chp_catalog_part6.pdf table 6.2
Refueling is commonly done on all sorts of similar reactors (university research, nuclear subs) and the cost of the fuel is very small , so I wouldn't expect it to be expensive enough to effect the study results.Maintenance costs for wind units are also not included.
The nominal life of a megawatt class wind turbine is 20 years. You as usual made up your 50 years right?
http://ouyad.en.alibaba.com/product/224475367-200285922/Megawatt_wind_turbine.html
Most wind turbines are usually placed on mountain/hill ridges and need the land clear cut. Heavy duty roads are required. Not much use for it other than forest. The leased cost of farmland based units would be enormous and is not included. Cows can't stand the noise.
Rooftop solar and wind are so inefficient that not even "renewable" folks include them as a significant factor in the power equation.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact checking. It works, bitches!
No, seriously, Sci Am, why would you publish a claim like that without verifying it first? Without actually vetting the sources and verifying that the author is not stupidly attributing the carbon footprint of nuclear war to nuclear power*?
It's this kind of straightforwardly dishonest math that makes the argument for nuclear power in the public arena poorly received whatever its merits.
As for the merits of nuclear power - and more specifically, nuclear power making use of abundant and efficient liquid flouride thorium - we have few if any other options for maintaining civilization in avoidance of peak oil and climate change. Jacobsen's nakedly cynical attempt to remove nuclear from the table is not only harmful to the dialogue, but potentially disasterous in the long run.
* While this is specious argumentation when talking about LWR plants - the proliferation of nuclear power has, historically, not encouraged the proliferation of nuclear weaponry - when talking about using Thorium-232 as the primary fuel, it's flatly impossible.
The only fissile material in the reaction pipeline for Thorium is Uranium-233. U-233 will spontaneously fission far more often than other potential weapon fuels, and has a higher critical mass. In short, your weapon is far more likely to blow up before it gets out of the factory. Further, the decay product of U-233 is U-232, which emits hard gammas, making it *very* easy to detect regardless of the shielding attempted. As such, it is either fundamentally unsuitable for nuclear weapons (if you're the weapon maker), or desirable as the means of proliferation (if you're a watchdog agency and want to be notified the second a weapon is no longer trapped in six feet of lead).
To dwbd and others who trash RE, This article may be flawed but not trash. The report failed to mention the use of the LiFePo4 battery on an utility scale. The raw ingredients of it are available on the terrawatt scale and an American invented it. So there should be no problem of using solar energy as a direct alternative to the overheated world bent on fossil fueled depletion we otherwise face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for nukes, that's about the only nimbyism myself (and millions others) could stand for. What happens when you come across those little buried spent nuclear batteries in your possible future (and gee, people complain about common trash! Or too many mirrors in the deserts). What's wrong with you people? Seriously, do you really think that the cost of a whole planet load of renewables will be the same as they cost today per unit, heck no! China (and hopefully, the rest of the world) will have robot factories that make such collection and storage much cheaper. This is just plain obvious as a natural evolution in human history.
The report is seriously flawed as it favors wind over solar. That is because they lacked the vision in the LiFePo4 batteries and exponential solar production. Therefore, there will not be a shortage of the neomag material needed by world conversion to EV's.
Here is an example (that does NOT need to parallel wartime efforts (:
In the beginning, it took many years just to pave roads for the horseless carriage, perhaps 10 years for just 500 square miles. However, within just 30 or so years, we had paved two orders of magnitudes greater area. That is quite impressive for a species which lacked the ability of robotic mass production!
Now, we will use the exponential nature of business again to cover that much land area with necessary solar mirrors (and PV). This alone could power the planet.
As for powerlines, a hundred billion will do (according to 40,000 miles times 2 million per mile). The powerline "expert" above say's no, but fails to figure that trivial sum ain't noth'n compared to what Americans spend on stupid stuff.
And again, as others pointed out, WHAT ABOUT ALGEA!
WOW
Also, about nukes, the best way would be from thorium burned in molten salt reactors. It seems the perfect solution until I think of robotic thieves that do the terrorist's dirty work...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not that all against it though I would hope security couldn't be bought off as easily as our leaders :(
The ONLY real obstacle is folks like you above who trash RE in hopes to save their apelike fossil fuels, by dedicated politicians with same interests, by (almost) all religious factions (as they don't care and think God is ending the world anyways), and by corporate greed (AKA conspiracy theory). Now, try not to get me wrong, this doesn't mean God does not exist and certaintly doesn't mean we can't stop useing the fossils fuels necessary for jump starting the next big evolutionary step for humanity (and my kids - Put determined smily here).
Hi David - your quote for 22 acre feet of water translates ( as far as my rough calculations go )to a thermal efficiency of about 80%. This would suggest that the parabolic mirrors concentrated the sunlight to over 2500 degrees fahrenheit at the hot ends of the stirling engines. I am a little sceptical about this.I am assuming over 1.8 million megawatt hours per annum from a 500 megawatt installation, ideally placed and even then that is on the optimistic side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, but this article is laughably bad, and most of the claims are easily proven as pure fantasy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo begin with, their premise is that the world needs 13.5 TW of energy. Then they proceed to indicate how that much energy can be generated with 20 years of sustained effort.
Umm...in 20 years the amount of energy we need is going to grow, significantly. Plan on 30TW of power (and perhaps 45)being needed worldwide, unless, of course, you desire the third world to remain undeveloped in perpetuity.
The claim that nuclear energy causes significant carbon dioxide emissions is laughable on many different levels, and seriously damages your credibility. A nuclear power plant can generate 25 MW for five years using approximately a softball sized hunk of uranium. In newer designs such as Hyperion, the uranium doesn't even need to be enriched. We have sufficient stores of this uranium already mined to last hundreds of years.
In fact, so little uranium is need to generate nuclear power that studies have shown doubling or tripling the cost of the fuel has virtually no impact on electricity prices. At higher prices the availability of uranium increases rapidly.
Taking the average cost of several large solar power installations, I get around $5 billion per GW, two to five times the typical cost for nuclear. That equals $1.6 trillion to generate the 333 GW the U.S. currently uses. By the way, that is $5 billion peak MW. Given the average solar array works only six hours per day, triple that number. Add in storage, and transmission....
I could go on and on, but the real point is energy density. Renewable sources, by their very nature, are diffuse energy sources. This means that you need enormous structures, covering vast areas, to collect sufficient power. These will never, ever, be cheap to build or maintain, and will be costly to the environment.
Nuclear is the probably the only way to go, probably a Hyperion type design that can be plugged into existing coal and gas fired power plants. It would be vastly cheaper to construct and maintain.
Finally I have to say - Scientific American, how far you have fallen in publishign this article. Sad to see a great institution die this way.
Our current levels of technology (energy, agricultiral etc) are far better equipped for doing the job of supporting the giant crowd living on the earth than the technologies of the past.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFuture technologies will be far more effective in dealing with our current problems than nowadays technologies. So why putting all our money in inadequate (=current) technologies and not thinking a bit harder on next generations. You are lazy.
Harrie Geenen , the Netherlands
Earth to Stehdayal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry but a steam plant costs far more than that $200/kw. Just what is the difference between a NG plant at $3k/kw and one using the Hyperion nuke other than the fuel source? What small, old EPA reports say doesn't fit with reality many times. But we know well what new NG plants cost from recent bids, $3k/kw.
Just what costs so much in a Hyperion module other than fuel? It's a bathtub size unit that is just the fuel bed and a heat exchanger, No? The $30mm/ million, not $25 according to both your earlier and Hyperion's PR's is by far mostly fuel costs, so one pays at least $25mm every 5 yrs according to Hyperion's website. Your 'facts' just don't make sense.
The financing limit on wind is 20 yrs, not it's life. But I wasn't talking about them but home, small business size units of which those like the Jacobs, other from the 1930's windgens are prized for their quality. Small windgens are simple, robust and can easily be made to last 50 yrs, even 100 as the Jacobs easily will. While they will need maintaining about 1/yr that's like anything. A steam plant will be completely rebuilt probably 5 x's in 50 yrs which costs far more. A WG only needs new bearings every few yrs and maybe repair some blade erosion, both simple to do by most any homeowner.
I've already proven solar is more cost effective, panels at $2.38/wt in my earlier posts. You saying otherwise doesn't change the facts nor do your cherry picked to complete lies of stuff you made up.
You also forget the 2 x's savings homeowners get by doing their own because of utility overhead, profit they keep. This doubles nuke costs to the customer vs home RE. No?
So stop trying to make RE look bad just because you want to rant your view of nukes is better by misinformation. We need all sources but each has their place, even nukes. But each needs to stand on it's merits based on sound economics, not make believe, wishing it. And we need it now, not what maybe might be available in the future.
When they actually can be bought in the US for the prices you and dbwb
say in the US, give me a call. Until then it's just vaporware. RE is now at far less cost than utility electric if shopped well and correctly matched to the site.
I don't know of any H2 fueled airplanes, but NH3 was the fuel for the world's fastest airplane, the X15.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument for nuclear is very tempting being that it is more energy dense by orders of magnitude. If there is a way to guarantee that it can't be breached, it would obviously be better than renewables. Less fossils needed per terrawatt unit capacity, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, it is the natural course of humanity's evolution to robotically exponentiate the production of solar mirrors and PV.
Such that it takes minimal fossils to do so since it will use its own power to continue such exponentiation at some point in time.
Like a virus!
Sun catchers from Stirling Energy Systems do not require any water for cooling, just for washing, hence the 22 acre ft per 500MW. Aside from CPV (which is still experimental in the costs stages), they have the best efficiency, (31%) and appears ready for mass commercialization (on the utility level).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA battery such as the LiFePo4 must be mass produced on the utility level to rid the problems of storage. I found out that the raw materials are safe and readily available up to some terrawatt scale. I'm not sure if they are "infinite" enough in supply to store many terrawatt hrs, though.
For those that think a conversion from fossil fuels would take 50 years, or is too expensive, here's what it would it take using Hyperion units.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Hyperion unit weighs 15 tons the same as 10 more complex automobiles. Fifty thousand units would end American fossil fuel use - 5% of 2007 auto production.
A $1.5 trillion investment in American Hyperion nuclear power, paid by ending $1 trillion in US fossil fuels expenditures with average paybacks of less than two years using a tiny fraction of US industrial capacity and American GHG emissions/oil imports end.
Fuel and waste disposal would come from design complete GenIV reactors like the IFR, Clinton shelved at Idaho National Labs.
Jerry you really do have a reading problem. You need to enroll in that remedial reading and arithmetic course at your local adult education center.
You've been given lots of links showing roof top wind and solar in general doesn't produce any net power. For the tenth time, your solar cost is peak!!!!! Rooftop average would be ten times your quoted cost.
You will make a fortune selling your fantastic DIY designs to Samsung though. Good luck with that.
Giant NG plants require a super high cost specially engineered gas turbine, pipelines, transmission grids,buildings and lotsa attorneys. The Hyperion needs a plain old dumb steam engine you'd find in almost any paper mill.
Your description of the Hyperion is the same as that of any other nuclear reactor just smaller. Lotsa links showing reactor fuel costs as a tiny portion of nuke costs.
OK, already, I'm checking out Hyperion...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't like the way they plan to use it to power oil and tar sands refining suggesting it may (somehow?) be tooooo limited to replace such ambitions. Also, there is no concern (as far as I saw) for the removal of its waste. I would assume that softball sized chunk of spent fuel will set in its corroded hot tub sized enclosure for millions of years before it half lives down to acceptable levels (lead). We all know that we can make casks that last for only hundreds of years, not millions. A more responsible form of nuclear would be closed cycle in a molten salt reactor since its waste would turn to lead in only hundreds of years (and would be much smaller per unit of energy yield).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the article very interesting. I had not previously recognized both the magnitude of available wind power and that its projected amortized cost was less than current power sources. Given the technical simplicity of wind power, especially with WARP Eneco more efficient, smaller footprint, more modular multiple small generator towers, why not focus on using wind power. Inclusion of higher cost, less technically advanced solar power seems to only confuse the issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour global view caused me to realize that I was focusing only on the US. In that 'simpler' local the articles estimated lower amortized kWh cost of land base turbines seemed to make them far preferable to other solutions. Have you or others considered the WARP-Eneco concept of multiple small turbine towers? It seems to me to solve many of the problem of the now conventional large blade solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bolgs appear to mention money. The USA . India, and China, USA-appear to recession. The two other counrtys--are poor. Who pays them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe seem to be blogs mention about money . The are three countries are USA India China. The USA ression two other countries are poor. Who pay for them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe blogs mention money. Three countries are mention. USA India and China. The USA in a recession. Other two poor. Who pays them ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRooftop photovoltic systems are too inefficient (25% or less) at present, but in northern areas, the largest energy need is for heat (water, home, pools, etc...). It would be better to create an integrated rooftop system which could be used to: 1) Provide shelter; 2) Generate Electricity; 3) Capture heat directly for home use; 4) If possible, generate hydrogen from water for use in home/car fuel cells. That would greatly reduce the size and number of systems needed to be deployed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this but what effect would 3.8 million large wind turbines have on weather. Remember each watt of power is taken directly from the kinetic energy of the air. This is a huge energy decrease which may affect local, or regional climate. Solar also has the same effect. Instead of all that solar energy reaching the earths surface it is being turned into electricity. This loss of energy (relative to the earths surface) will make the area colder and again affect the climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy question regards your statement on page 62 "The most problematic materials may be rare-earth metals such as neodymium used in turbine gearboxes." You amplify the importance of this statement with a graphic on the same page. My understanding is that neodymium is not used in turbine gearboxes, rather the metal is used in NdFeB alloy magnets that are incorporated in advanced electric generators that don't require the high rpms of a doubly fed induction generator, thereby avoiding the need of expensive and unreliable high speed gearboxes. Or am I missing something? I would appreciate an explanation if I am in error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks.
I suspect Jacobson & Delucci made a deliberate, complete reversal of the problem of new Wind Turbines & Peak Neodymium. Most Wind Turbines have about a 20 ton gearbox and a 5 ton synchronous AC generator. The gearboxes are prone to premature failure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe newer, better Wind Turbines are using enormous Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generators, which are much lighter, more efficient & reliable and dont require a Gearbox, but eat up loads of Neodymium.
Problem is, we BADLY need those high strength Neodymium magnets for Electric Vehicles, E-Bikes, E scooters & HEV's. The Prius uses two PMSM/G's. An 18 kw & a 33 kw. They are especially needed for the flat pancake Wheel Hub Motors, which I believe is the best way to make E-vehicles. The vastly improved efficiency of Electric Vehicles over ICE Vehicles is a much more important use of Neodymium magnets than way-too-costly Wind Turbines. Examples, the Crusher UGV and UQM high efficiency 150 kw wheel motors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Kh7FVgDCU&feature=related
http://www.uqm.com/pdfs/powerphase%20150%20spec%20sheet%20update%209-21-09.pdf
I can't believe the authors are that stupid as to equate the Neodymium magnets with the Gearboxes, and the problem will be solved by switching to Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator, Gearboxless Wind Turbines!
When looking toward a sustainable future, it's important to ask the question: How efficiently are we using energy today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://truecostblog.com/2009/11/09/total-energy-efficiency-of-the-us/
The US economy is only about 33% efficient in its use of primary energy today. If this were raised to 50%, one third of all primary energy consumption would be unnecessary - with a dollar savings of over $300 Billion annually at today's prices.
Efficient energy use is a big (perhaps the biggest) piece of the sustainability puzzle, and it should not be forgotten.
Sethdayal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are twisting my numbers and still won't admit your heat source/Hyperion, only lasts 5 yrs before you have to pay $25-30million again!!
My NG plant was for a steam unit but cogen for the same output costs little more because the gas turbine and steam units can be 50% of the size and condenser 1/4 the size. A steam, generator, condenser not including burners/boilers cost about $2k/kw. As another point, coal units cost $4k/kw of which the steam part is again $2k/kw. Deal with it.
If you can't understand my numbers it's because you don't want to or admit you are wrong. Yes I know my numbers are peak but they are so much lower than the Hyperion, other nukes, it makes up for it. Now add the fact the utilities double the electric cost when they charge you and you save far more in net cost. so while say the Hyperion may make power at $.13/kWhr, the utility will charge $.26/kWhr for it. Just not viable in most cases.
This is an important article for the debate leading up to Copenhagen next month. What needs to be realised is that long before 2030 the technology will have moved on considerably. Wind energy will be generated using large kites attached to platforms floating out to sea. Solar thermal power stations will use gas turbines operating at temperatures high enough to achieve efficiencies only dreamed of today. Photovoltaics will be thin film and therefore use minimal material. Each technology, alone, could provide all the energy we need. The cost of all will drop to a level that makes fossil fuels uneconomic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJacobson and Delucchi are wrong about us being in danger of us running out of metals. The history of metal production is one of finding ways to use ever poorer ore bodies. All metals have shown a long-term trend of dropping prices and there is no reason to believe this will change. The ability to recycle our waste is also progressing well.
fwegert ; your concept of using algae grown at sea and seaweed to generate biofuels will be very important. I will be adding more comments about your ideas to my web page at http://www.copcutt.me.uk/cleanenergy.htm
drcowboybc ; energy generators of all types do not operate at full capacity all the time. You left the capacity factors out of your calculations.
This is a great article. I am disappointed in the level of discussion which has followed. It appears that putting down others is an acceptable way to make a point on this discussion thread. Several of you went on and on about the 3.8 million wind turbines in a 50 square kilometer area. I don't think you read the article carefully. This refers to the footprint at the base, probably included because land use is a critical factor to consider. The next sentence says that when the needed space between them is figured, these wind turbines would occupy 1% of the earth's land (I'm pretty sure that is more than 50 square kilometers.) I noticed other errors in criticisms of the article, but don't have time to go back and find them to be specific. The Scientific American editors are smart people, and so are the authors of this study. How about taking this more seriously? I would have liked to see a real discussion on this topic, based on facts. This is not a game. The future of our grandchildren depends on our ability to make this transition away from fossil fuels quickly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDalbert my friend the authors have zero credibility and that is backed up by numerous references in the commentary. These two are the best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/10/jacobson-delucchi-plan-revealed.html
JerryD my friend your reading and arithmetic skill problem again. Have you enrolled at the Adult Education center?
Where do you get $2k a kilowatt for a steam genset? I gave you US government references showing it at $300 a kilowatt.
The 5 years for the Hyperion is old news. The latest figures are 7 to 10 years.
Where do you get that the idea that unit is scrapped and not just refuelled and returned to service?
All made up huh!!. Just like those windmills and solar panels of yours.
Go to http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/ and look for "Mark Z. Jacobson on behalf of the authors, on November 9th, 2009 at 15.25"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse to Barry Brook
It would be redundant for me to explain further. You can go to the source of the assumptions made in the article. Looks reasonable to me.
dalbert, go to the same thread and check out the comments that reply to Jacobson's statements. They are pretty much torn to shreds by other commentators. Jacobson has not responded to the devastating critiques of his reply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi fireofenergy - thanks for the info on suncatcher. The original question of whether they could be economically scaled up still raises the problem of accommodating the radiators required for the cool end of the stirling engine to make it work efficiently. I suppose the back of the parabolic dish could serve, but the albedo for the ground round about the installation would affect how much heat could be radiated away in the hottest times of the day. Whether it produces at 31% efficiency, or higher matters less than the fully costed price per unit of electrical power produced. The present record for a PV is, or was just over 42% and there are claims that quantum dots could push that to over 70%. Neither figure is necessary ( though desirable ) if efficiencies in the 20 -30% range can be produced in cells that deliver at costs competitive with other energy sources. Two developments give hope for optimism. Firstly clusters of exact numbers of atoms of one element have been shown to exhibit the characteristics of elements from a different part of the periodic table, suggesting that the properties of rare elements, such as Indium, may be produced from more abundant elements.The second area, wherein I have no expertise and can only marvel, is in the ability that appears to be progressing in self assembly of molecular structures that extend from the nano to the macro scale. These developments lead me to conclude that cheap 30% + efficiency pv cells are not far off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe undercurrent to the whole debate is our need to change the perspective that directly equates consumption with prosperity. That scenario only persists, long term if energy keeps getting cheaper in real terms, and as Arthur Clarke forewarned we don't kill ourselves with all our waste heat.
You are flogging a dead horse. Why is that people are so willing to believe in major breakthroughs in Solar Energy, which right now is costing an INCREDIBLE $30-80k per kw, for unreliable, intermittent power that still requires mostly fossil fuels to complement its energy output. This is nonsensical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's latest Renewable Special is a much hyped up Solar PV plant in Florida. USA's largest. $152M for 4.8 MW avg. One little Hyperion Nuclear, at $30 million would supply 5X the power for 1/5th the price - except reliably - rain or shine - with no fossil fuel complementary power.
Now how can any THINKING person, with at least some INTEGRITY, believe in these 25 fold breakthroughs, that still need another 10-100 fold breakthrough in energy storage, while ignoring applying even basic, modern production line techniques to Nuclear Power plants. Never been done before. They've done it with aircraft since the WW1.
Although 10's of billions are being poured into nutty energy negative SCAMS like the Hydrogen Economy, Corn Ethanol & Clean Coal, Obama & Chu aren't spending Zip on basic Nuclear Power plant R&D.
Britain under the tutelage of the pragmatic physicist David Mackay "Energy Sustainability without the Hot Air" is just going to build 10 new Nuclear Power plants. NO FOOLISHNESS. See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6910307.ece
While Chu, lives in la-la land espousing Nobel Prize winning breakthroughs in Biofuels & Solar Energy.
Hi dwbd - You ask why people should be optimistic of breakthroughs in solar energy and energy storage. Historically many things have got a lot cheaper in real terms when the full force of competition and mass production comes into play. The first hand held electronic calculators cost more than the weeks wages for ordinary blocks, now they can be bought for about one hours wage or less I'm not defending small wind power but relative to an engine powered generator the cost of their machines are hard to justify. There are many other things, such as underground cable which cost many times the value of the raw materials that went into making them. This is as much to do with the limits of the market and the scale of production. Another example is railway passenger trains, where the price per coach is about four times that of the equivalent road bus capacity. You are correct about the usefulness of nuclear power in bridging the gap between fossil fuel scarcity and truly renewable technologies, - however a large expansion of nuclear power worldwide does increase the security threat from fanatical groups getting the materials to make and deploy a dirty bomb. On your last point I think the authors of the article were just sloppy, as the Neodymium IS for the permanent magnets of the generator. Why they need a permanent magnet set up at all puzzles me because they need a power supply at all times anyway to turn the device into and out of the wind direction and operate the emergency brake. For a tenth of the cost you can buy diesel generating sets and that includes the generator. Are they saying that building a gearbox is inherently more expensive and difficult than a large diesel engine with all it's ancillory systems? It seems reasonably obvious that if cheap efficient pv panels came on the market a great many people would want to buy them.It is also fairly clear that this might hurt other interests in the short term. You don't need a conspiracy theory to understand that some have a vested interest in delaying widespread solar power. On the storage issue, if the energy is cheap enough the present methods, including synthetic hydrocarbons would suffice. Intermittancy would just have to be lived with, but it is not the same as unreliability, and that comes down to quality of manufacture and maintenance. Swapping dependancy on fossil fuels in the control of a few for nuclear power again in the control of a few does not sound like real progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy is about physics and not about technology. Technology only taps into the 'potential'...it doesn't change the relationship of matter and energy. There is a myth among the populace that 'if we only put our mind to it, we can accomplish anything'. Sorry, it is just a myth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNowhere is this myth greater than in battery technology....or in hydrogen powered cars, wind power, etc.
Energy production in the next 100 years will revolve around
-fossil fuel burning
-nuclear energy
-hydro power
with a smattering of almost insignificant wind power, solar power, thermal power
guess what...almost identical to today. The physics of the universe are not going to change in the next hundred years.
I'm a print copy subscriber. How do I get a PDF of an article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquamwm@nv.doe,gov
I think the article strives to do what we must--get off of fossil fuels asap. No doubt there are lots of problems with their proposal. My question has to do with the authors dismissing of biofuels. They say that biofuels, "will cause air
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispollution mortality on the same order as gasoline (Jacobson, 2007; Anderson, 2009), because the
method of producing ethanol has no impact on the tailpipe-emissions from ethanol combustion
or the resulting urban air pollution." However, combining biofuels with plug-in hybrids resolves this issue. The only time a car will need to burn the biofuel is on long trips--i.e. out of the city. The total amount of pollution will be about 80% less than at present (compare 100 mpg with plug-in hybrids to 20 mpg cars today). Isn't this a way to get to zero CO2 for cars and trucks?
But Mr Scots you are forgetting that we are maybe only ten years away from a civilization ending global warming/peak oil crisis. You can't seriously think renewables could do much of anything in that time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge Bush's Teeerists could steal enough isotopes from any large hospital to make a dirty bomb but nerve gas and anthrax are much easier so why bother. Because of that you want to bet our civilization and billions of lives on some possible breakthrough in renewables. No Scots engineer I know would be that impractical.
There was no mention of how aircraft and ships would be powered in this article. Certainly, one could use nuclear power for ships, but not for aircraft...as governments don't even want nuclear powered satellites overflying their countries. What do the authors plan for ships and aircraft propulsion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see some of the assumptions made on solar power. Having worked on space based satellite arrays ten years ago, I am somewhat aware of the possible conversion efficiencies then and the exotic materials required. It is difficult to believe that both costs and performance will be in the ranges given by the authors.
I don't recall the authors discussing the effects of winter in various latitudes on the solar power generation. Perhaps they assumed generation would be done in the deserts of the world and routed to users. That implies some very long power lines in just the U.S.
Lastly, what assumptions were made regarding lifetimes of the solar cells? As a rule of thumb I would think a 20 year lifetime would be reasonable for robust cells. Did the authors consider the degradation of the current output of the cells from overcast and cloudy days?
The authors of A PATH TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BY 2030 . contend that the World can supply all the energy it needs by the year 2030 from renewable sources with no use of fossil fuel or nuclear-generated electricity. In reality, achieving what the article presents is impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors do not consider if the material resources or the labor to build their proposed energy infrastructure exists. Neither do they consider the costs, either at todays rates or what the rates would be in light of the mammoth effort related to their suggestions. Whether or not society would provide the needed land and sea areas is absent from the article.
I calculated the cost of the proposed implementations, using realistec capacity factors and current costs, slightly adjusted downward to account for technological advancement (assuming all the materials and labor happened to be available). The total cost would be about $171 trillion under the best of circumstances. That is nearly 3 times the sum of the annual gross domestic product of all the countries in the world, or roughly 17% of the world GDP during the twenty years of project construction. Things are worse when one considers the fact that nearly all massive projects end up costing substantially more than initially estimated. In my opinion, this plan is impossible to accomplish and is surely less than the best world approach to our energy problems.
Hopefully we can receive a road-map of when we start seeing the results and that it is a lot earlier than after spending the money. We need checkpoints and milestones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't get some of the math here. 3,800,000 turbines at 5MW each would supply 3.8*10E6*5*10E6 Watts = 19TW. How come we need this much to produce (part of) 5.8TW? Is it about efficiency or my poor math?
Reply to Shimon Schreiber.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMultiply your numerical result by the capacity factor for wind farms. It's about 0.3. The result is 5.7 TW.
By charging for the information in your articles, you fail to contribute to the public debate. Yes, I know, you are a free market capitalistic corporation. One grows tired of your inability to help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I understand correctly the aim is to reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions which cause global warming, at a colossal cost to the world economy. I hate to tell you guys that there is no global warming to fight now, especially of the anthropogenic kind that never was. I say this because satellite temperature measurements of the lower troposphere, accurate to 0.3 degrees Celsius, have shown that the so-called Late twentieth century warming of the eighties and nineties just never was. Despite what Hansen testified to in 1988 there was only a gentle oscillation of temperature, up and down by half a degree, for the entire twenty year period. Its cause was the El Nino-Southern Oscillation or ENSO which has a global temperature influence. And then it was interrupted by a giant super El Nino in 1998. This one was not part of ENSO but was caused by Indian Ocean overflow. It was brought to us by the Pacific equatorial countercurrent and when it splashed ashore in South America it raised the global temperature by a full degree Celsius. NOAA has posted beautiful shots of it. But that was the last time we had any warming. Since then the temperature stagnated from 2001 to 2007 and then dropped severely when a new La Nina phase of ENSO kicked in. At the same time carbon dioxide kept on increasing and with it the temperature predictions of climate models running on supercomputers. That is the only place in the world today where global warming exists. Those modelers glued to their computer screens ought to open the outside door every once in a while and get reacquainted with the real climate that exists outside their computers. To learn more, check me out on ICECAP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I understand correctly the aim is to reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions which cause global warming, at a colossal cost to the world economy. I hate to tell you guys that there is no global warming to fight, especially of the anthropogenic kind that never was. I say this because satellite temperature measurements of the lower troposphere, accurate to 0.3 degrees Celsius, have shown that the so-called Late twentieth century warming of the eighties and nineties just never was. Despite what Hansen testified in 1988 there was only a gentle oscillation of temperature, up and down by half a degree, for the entire twenty year period. Its cause was the El Nino-Southern Oscillation or ENSO which has a global temperature influence. And then it was interrupted by a giant super El Nino in 1998. This one was not part of ENSO but was caused by Indian Ocean overflow. It was brought to us by the Pacific equatorial countercurrent and when it splashed ashore in South America it raised the global temperature by a full degree Celsius. NOAA has posted beautiful shots of it. But that was the last time we had any warming. Since then the temperature stagnated from 2001 to 2007 and then dropped severely when a new La Nina phase of ENSO kicked. At the same time carbon dioxide kept increasing and with it temperature predictions of climate models running on supercomputers. That is the only place where warming exists today. Those modelers glued to their computer screens ought to open the outside door every once in a while and get reacquainted with the real climate that exists outside computers. To learn more, check me out on ICECAP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn California today,almost half of greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation (cars and trucks). This thread has continued too long without mention of reducing demand through more compact urban development and distributed agriculture and energy production, reducing transport costs and driving. This is also better for the health of a sedentary public (you're just as sedentary in a Prius as in a Hummer). For a lot of human transportation needs, the best alternative fuel is food, and the most efficient machine to convert solar energy to kinetic energy is the human body. If you think this is a "decline" in our standard of living, I'd ask you to re-think your "standards."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJacobson and Delicchi do not address the problem of fuel for aircraft and large ships except to mention hydrogen. Hydrogen, of course, is a wonderful fuel, but the difficulty is in the size required for an aircraft fuel tank. The Russians and others have studied this problem in some detail, but did not come up with a solution worthy of testing. My other objection to the article is their typical attitude of wind power as the holy grail of sustainable energy. They completely ignore the devastating effect of wind farms on birds, especially migratory birds and raptors. They give lip service to their ideas being ecologically sound, but really ignore the issue. The other potential problem with wind farms is their effect on mammals, an issue which has not been adequately studied. I know, for example, that some humans, this writer included, suffer from nausea and other effects when within a half kilometer of certain wind machines. The proponents of wind energy claim they take all these issues into account and that by selcetion of sites the bird motality is negligible and the effect on other wildlife is non-existent. I don't believe they are being truthful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It's carbon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Biofuels are hydrocarbons, but burning them still produces carbon dioxide.
3. Nuclear proponents NEVER include the cost of waste disposal (just as carbon-burning never include the costs of carbon capture).
4. I would like Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi to explain how an increase in efficiency reduces power demand, and whether they include the cost of electricity generation and transmission in their 75 to 86 (the latter a remarkably precise figure) percent efficiency for an electric motor.
You misunderstand how fragile the system is. A "gentle oscillation" of half a degree on average indicates a massive disturbance. The average increase over the 20th century is only +0.74 degrees on average, which reflects a change of up to +2 degrees in certain (particularly fragile, unfortunately) areas like the poles. If the worldwide average were to increase by more than 2 degrees we would see massive disasters - sea level rise, more drought and monsoons - as in certain areas the temperature may have gone up by 6 degrees or more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe models used these days are extremely sophisticated, and every one of them suggests at least a 2 degrees warming by 2100, some as high as 5 degrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions.png). All of these predictions spell disaster, due to "feedbacks". For example, warmer oceans = less ice = less reflection = hotter. Or, warmer oceans = more methane released from sea floor = hotter. Or more desert = less trees = more CO2 and less refelction = hotter. Not to mention the feedbacks we haven't encountered yet (nobody knew about the methane under the sea until is started bubbling out). The longer we leave it, the more likely it is we pass a point of no return. This means runaway warming with no way of fixing it. I find this idea terrifying, and you should too.
As the writers say, the money for this won't come from governments but from the people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best thing many of us can do now is to buy our electricity from a 100% renewable tarrif. Sure it costs a little bit more now, but I'm perfectly happy paying the extra to get my electricity from just wind and solar.
It wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't even an option in the USA...
The price of spent nuclear fuel is already included in the levalized cost of nuclear power... it's $0.001/kW-hr disposal fee in the United States (this is what has been paying for Yucca Mountain ~$750million/year).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-http://epw.senate.gov/nwpa82.pdf
To put this in context, the average residential customer pays ~$0.116/kW-hr for electricity.
The nuclear industry may be PAYING $0.001/kWh but what does it COST? Here in Australia in the great and glorious future we the taxpayers will be paying heaps to the coal industry to keep our electricity bills down (yes I know it's a dumb idea but that's politics).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind power is a non-viable source of energy! The reasons for this are simple and even mentioned in the article but the authors fail to grasp the full extent of the problem. The wind simply does not blow where and when you need it. These are not local difficulties, as the authors imply, but can extend region-wide for days over mutliple periods in a year. Even when the wind blows if it's not at the right time the energy is wasted (e.g. most of the night). A part solution to this would be storage. The authors explore some storage options but fail to grasp the full extent of the problem. A few batteries won't cut it, you need storage on an industrial scale. One such example is the DINORWIG facility in Wales. Such facilities are useful even with existing viable technology, however I couldn't name another such facility. There are experiments in Europe to store compressed air but I've not heard of any attempt to roll that out on the required scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind power will only move beyond being a public relations stunt or a special purpose vehicle to extract taxpayer funds if it could be shown to work on a city-wide scale. That City is ?? (I won't hold my breath).
The comments here are really useful, thanks. The initial article of course made me hopeful, the reality of it not so much. While researching this article though, I did come across this more hopeful venture on "The Chemistry of Personalized Solar Energy": http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ic901328v
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I'd rather have no energy and live a hard life than have energy and live in a world polluted by nuclear waste or hydro-fracking fluids. We need to find a solution that is truly clean, before we say YES to any new technologies.
People will need to conserve. When our energy sources go empty, we will face the same problems that faces every other animal on earth when they grow beyond the carrying capacity. At this transition I believe we�ll have to use nuclear energy. But this just leaves us with a new transition, from peak uranium, peak thorium, peak whatever radioactive material still left in the upper core.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar installations in pocket size.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we have not taken into account, the analysts in their paper is the fact that since a few weeks the new 3D solar cell technologies are known in a pocket size.
When you consider that the sun provides us daily in 30 minutes so much energy that it would provide all people a year in energy, then these new 3D solar cells could capture much of it.
These can be from inexpensive materials such as PMMA and dye solar cells produce and easy to stack up like a sandwich. Then everyone can set up your home or car as a package and provide themselves with electricity.
Because these cells can also hide in buildings and be used mobile:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/solar-power-cells-underground.html#post-a-comment
http://sites.google.com/site/sunrydz/
Many cranky inventors claim to have discovered perpetual motion machines. Yet the nearest thing to it is biomass pyrolysis. Vegetation extracts CO2 from the air and converts it into organic matter. Pyrolysis, which requires no outside energy source, converts biomass into either biofuels, biogas, hydrogen or charcoal. So we can convert atmospheric CO2 pollution into useable energy sources, with the Sun providing power. The technology has been proven and is cheap. See www.eprida.com for full details. Now all man needs is to learn how to use this green energy efficiently, as fossil fuels are being wasted at an alarming rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Eco-steve - Pyrolysis does require an energy source to heat the biomass in a controlled atmosphere. This may come directly from solar energy, or by burning some biomass, but it is not free as either requires equipment which has to be made and maintained. The very best conversion of sunlight to biomass is expected to come from algae and may approach 10% efficiency. PV cells on the other hand may well exceed 20 % on a commercially available unit. If this powers an efficient electrolysis unit an overall efficiency of sunlight to fuel of better than 15% may be on the cards and more than 50% more productive than any biomass based system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn re-reading the above article, I began to question the math. On page 61, I get different goal numbers on all categories. As an example, 3.8 million wind turbines producing 5 megawatts each would produce a total of 19 million megawatts or 19 trillion watts. This would be more than 3 times your projection, and this category alone would produce almost twice the world's need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJack Eiden
While I plan to continue subscribing to and reading SA, I do agree with the tone of the writers above who voice dismay at SA not at least caveating the article in some manner to show that the numbers are debatable. For instance, saying only 17 to 20% of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle and claiming 75 to 86% for electric vehicles is at best spurious as the inefficiencies of the electircity source and its power source needs to be considered too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've subscribed to Scientific American, and I loved the article "A plan for sustainable energy by 2030." But I have these questions and can perhaps become suggestions.Help less developed countries in the renewal of bad energy for sustainable energy?Convince companies like oil companies and others such as the coal retire? And maybe convince them to start from scratch investing to develop new sustainable energy (VAS)?Convencer a maioria das sociedades poss�veis a precionar seus governantes, a favor da energia sustent�vel.Thank you for your attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see the breakdown of carbon usage for the various power sources in the article...mining for the natural resources used, manufacturing, production of energy...based on the life cycle of each system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I've heard that wind turbines may have bearing problems due to the huge loads on the bearings, which may cause much down town or shorten the life of the equipment.
I'd hope that these authors have a prominent 'booth' at the Copenhagen conference. The pure logic of focused design on microgeneration of energy so often falls to the political whim of macrogeneration and with it the inefficiencies and interdependencies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets hear more from such talented designers!
David Watson
London, Ontario, Canada
1. Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It's carbon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Biofuels are hydrocarbons, but burning them still produces carbon dioxide.
REPLY
1) Graphite is carbon. Coal is a hydrocarbon with a typical empirical composition of CH. Anthracite is more carbon rich; bituminous has more hdrogen. All coals have bound heteroatoms such as nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur. For a cartoon structure see this URL:
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ce-Co/Coal.html
2) Plants use the energy of sunlight to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to biomass. When we burn biomass, we simply return the CO2 to the atmosphere. The process can be global warming neutral.
1) Graphite is carbon. Coal is a hydrocarbon with a typical rmpirical composition of CH. Anthracite is more carbon rich; bituminous has more hdrogen. All coals have bound heteroatoms such as nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur. For a cartoon structure see this URL:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ce-Co/Coal.html
2) Plants use the energy of sunlight to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to biomass. When we burn biomass, we simply return the CO2 to the atmosphere. The process can be global warming neutral.
It is lame and counter productive to charge for information that the people of the USA need to understand to help make our economy sustainable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with solar is volcano's it only takes one big to put most devices out of action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishas anyone heard about the fellow whom owns the GEET patent? does that really work? he claims to get at least three times gas mileage even if quality of it is bad. if that is real it is metaphorically synonymous with the flux capacitor.(geet.nl) he also has near zero emissions he claims by recycling the exhaust thoroughly and appropriately by using hardware stuff valued at about thirty dollars. it supposedly atomizes the gas and exhaust after the first combustion? good intention if it is not real. if it is bye b y e oil companies and their families. we will have to take care of the rich one day if we are to get the highest out of power
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuggest to view my web site www.omarsolh.com and click on GCES...I may have a partial solution to harness power through Solar and Wind without kicking back to grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy wind cone technology could be placed anywhere, off a window, along a high rise facade and along a coastal area....
Suggest to view my web site www.omarsolh.com and click on GCES...I may have a partial solution to harness power through Solar and Wind without kicking back to grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy wind cone technology could be placed anywhere, off a window, along a high rise facade and along a coastal area....
--------"Lets get realistic."----------
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethane can power diesel engines directly. Railroad locomotives are diesel/electric hybrids already. Railroad engines are basically electrical power plants on wheels.
If it is too expensive to generate power from centralized power plants away from urban centers, then generate distributed power from the urban centers.
Methane can be produced from CO2 and H2O via the Sabatier reaction. Methane can be liquified and moved by rail in highly concentrated form with almost no transmission loss. Diesel/electric locomotives could be used to generate power close to urban centers where it is needed, and they can bring their own fuel with them. No need for long extension cords.
It sounds as realistic to me as digging up carbon from hundreds feet underground, shipping it all over the place just to burn it to boil water----and THEN, STILL need the long extension cords that are so expensive and unrealistic.
Use wind or solar energy to power recirculating pumps to existing hydroelectric resevoirs----recirculate downstream water back up behind the dam. The wind or solar energy is stored for when it is needed, and the extension cords are already built and in use.
Solar thermal energy is ideally suited to heating buildings, hot water, and even air conditioning. Natural gas is used mostly for these purposes now. Solar thermal energy is simple, low tech, cheap and inexpensive to produce and install, and effective. It is ideally suited as an auxilliary system to furnaces and water heaters----your furnace or water heater still functions exactly the same as it always has, it just comes on far less often and uses less energy when it does. Natural gas displaced(or $$$ to buy NG) can be used to power vehicles. Drivers could be running their cars on free energy from the sun by using NG they would have used in their homes in their vehicles instead.
You have to "Make hay when the sun shines."----but you don't necessarily need to wait for sunshine to use the hay.
Sorry ?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The present popular designs of horizontal axis machines cannot do this because they are not fail safe,
and only get marginally cheaper with increaseing scale
( and at the cost of more limited operating range )"
On what do you base this "marginally cheaper" assertion ?
The simple facts of Areas and Volumes, dictate that the Turbine half of the bill - cost per m^2 of weather faced - is directly proportional to its linear dimension, or "size".
The Alternator half of the bill, conversely, is inversely proportional to Size, or thro'put. e.g. 4 Alternators of 1/4 the thru'put cost about twice as much as one big one.
There two simple realities combine to make the Total cost of facing any given area of weather a necklace-shaped function of (log) Size of TADs deployed.
The minimum cost occurs around sizes where T costs about the same as A. Furthermore this appears to happen at around One metre diameter - not 40 or more !!
Just under this size, the required gear coupling ratio becomes 1:1, and so the price hikes downward by the cost of the gearbox !
By taking on board these physical realities, it is possible to achieve about 40 or more times the annual % return of energy invested in the same site .
Awareness, indeed. Lack of it causes as problems as were caused by - say - the awarenes that fuel could be burned in a special thing, which would then do work .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone asked where the heat will come from to liquify the "lng" at the receiving-end of the pipe in S. Wales, uk ?
I have heard no mention of any rather large cold-storage wharehouse. I guess they will build another "windfarm" so as to make it all "Green" - and "Teletubby". Current "Windfarms", by the way, don't provide even enough energy to replace themselves. Hence they are "renewable" - while something else does. It's just "school stuff", you know. Not for Real men.
Also, "pounds per watt" is meaningless because it is an instantaneous value, depending entirely upon the weather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe meaningfull measurement - which you will Never hear-of (because it provides extreme embarrassment to extremely large "Cats") would be "pounds per kW-hr". This is arrived at by dividing the
total cost of the installation in kW-hrs MINUS the total number of kW-hrs provided by the installation during its life.
BY
The total cost of the installation.
Currently this figure is Positive. i.e. the damn thing has a "Carbon Footprint" - but it "looks good" !!
How many litres of diesel does it take to make one litre of "bio-diesel". I asked a "bio-diesel" firm but they were not interested in advertising this figure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, but think of all the "jobs" it'll create !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can see for ourselves. It's the only way, and the reason that we went to school. See my simple maths on "Current windfarms". It's as easy to comprehend as it was difficult to find. A Serious Turbine-Alternator Device returns around 40 rimes the % p.a. of its cost compared to that of current (80m high) "technology"
Hi bertwindon - I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "the bill", but if you mean unit cost the prices quoted by the manufacturers give a good indication and although installed turbines reached a low of about 800 pounds sterling per kilowatt rated capacity a few years ago, that amount is rising with currency inflation, despite the typical turbine rising from 2.2 megawatts to 3 megawatts. There are sound engineering reasons for this because the stress on the root of the blade and the base of the tower goes up with the square of the blade length and tower height. Because the rotational speed gets slower due to tip velocity limitations, the torque that the gearbox has to handle goes up with the fourth power. These facts, coupled with small production volumes mean that many of the savings one might have got from higher efficiency and fewer machines are largely offset by these machines being almost as expensive per rated capacity. On the more limited working range that too is a matter of the physics. All turbines operate on the apparent wind , which is the vector sum of the actual wind and the velocity of the turbine blade. A long turbine blade will reach limiting velocities at lower wind speeds than a smaller turbine, unless the twist along the blade can be varied and this adds both mechanical complexity and potential stress concentration points in the blade. Overcoming these hurdles is costly and is another reason that increasing scale does not greatly reduce the price of the energy harvested
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thank authors Jacobson and Delucchi for their broad overview of available resources available for a clean energy transition. I believe the opportunity is greater and more economical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if we transitioned away from almost total reliance on private vehicles by promoting urban rail, reduced jet aviation travel by rebuilding national rail, retrofitted existing buildings to substantially reduce heat and cooling requirements and their "energy needs", substantially improved end-use efficiencies, and reformed agriculture by promoting healthier more vegetarian based diets and sustainable, organic family farming?
All of these could be affected by initially eliminating massive, pervasive, perverse corporate subsidies. Perhaps this could be done through new law to the extent that "No person shall lobby Congress who is paid to do so."
Thanks again.
Hi solar Jim - yep things are certainly gonna have to change, whether we like it or not. We should however use the best science and engineering to shape the new order. This includes rational study of human behaviour and whether over ambition and greed are disorders that require remedies or something to be indulged because those with the affliction also seek power to satisfy both their appetites. We should also try to combat psuedo science which makes assertions that it has little independant proof of, such as those for "organic farming". Rather than regress to organic farming, or go to the extremes of some of the genetic engineering and chemical warfare against biota in the open air, indoor agriculture using growth houses with transparent canopies, but hermetically sealed against pathogens and bad weather should prove more productive with less wastage. Water use in many parts is one of the key limiting factors in crop production. In sealed growth houses water loss is minimised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUrban railways are a poor alternative to dedicated roads which for crucial times of the day are restricted to certain vehicles, such as buses, taxi buses, emergency vehicles ( police, fire and ambulance ) and which have priority where they cross other roads. The intelligent use of buses where fares are collected at upgraded mini stations greatly improves their ability to transport people where they wish to go in the minimum time. Buses can also negotiate gradients that would be beyond any normal railway, and a multi story central bus station would use far less urban land to handle the same numbers of passengers and routes as a railway system. For longer journeys I reckon that evacuated tube transport ( ETT ) ticks all the right boxes. It should be able to travel faster, safer, much quieter, immune from bad weather, and cheaper in energy , construction costs and maintenance than any of todays popular transport modes. No wonder the big businesses are so scared of it that little is heard about it, even though the idea has been around for more than 60 years.The root malais of our time, and probably many before, is that power is not curbed by unavoidable responsibility. The financial world seems to be geared to maximise the opportunities for those in it's professions to gamble with other people's money, capital and prospects and profit from both success and failure. Volatile markets are in conflict with confidence, and confidence is the basis of all currencies. Another paradox is the role of the "career politician" who has constant conflict of interest
selamlar arkadaslar..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissohbet chat sohbetim chat <a href="http://sohbetim.gen.tr/">sohbet</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishaber <a target="_blank" href="http://www.supertr.com/">haber</a>
1slak mendil <a target="_blank" href="http://www.posetdolum.com/">1slak mendil</a>
selamlar arkadaslar..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisguzelll
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLast year I installed a photo-voltaic system that has generated 69% of the electricity we have used over the last 12 months. The cost (after subsidies) was less than 2% of the value of the house. Without subsidies, it would have been under 3%. Yes, the house is in an insanely expensive part of California, but the numbers would be maybe twice that %age elsewhere. Not so impossible, surely
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..nuclear bomb material is not made in power reactors". Many of the neutrons that do not cause fission in U235 in a power reactor (the source of the power) are captured by U239, which then decays rapidly to Pu239, the nuclear bomb material used at Nagasaki, and for most fission and fusion bombs since. This plutonium is a major reason nuclear fuel rods have to be changed out and reprocessed in power reactors. And a long-term source of radioactive nuclear waste, unless we use it to generate power by it's own fission reaction. Which still generates a lot of other radioactive waste.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sort of nuclear nonsense from Nuclear Fans ... brings us that much closer to the edge.
@PeterB: How about give us the actual costs in dollars for your PV system (subsidized and unsubsidized), then explain how a regular American family at or below median household income is going to come up with the capital for a system? (the same people who are helping you pay for your system through the tax/subsidy regime)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFace it: rooftop PV is a toy for rich people, and it's a crime to fund it with subsidies.
Nuclear is the best, but not everybody is on the grid. For those of us who live in the other 98% of the country, wind and solar are great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll theories of a grand single-source solution are misguided.
Energy on earth comes from two places, the earths core, and the sun. Finding ways of extracting and utilizing it with maximum efficiency all depends on your environmental conditions.
Below are additional technical details supporting numbers in this article, relating to comparing renewable energy systems with nuclear. Additional backup for remaining issues can be found at the sites at the end of this letter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. CO2 emissions from nuclear. These consist of four components.
A. Lifecycle: Range 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Source for low number: nuclear industry estimate; source for high number, slightly higher than the average from the review paper by Sovacool (Energy Policy 36, 2940-2953, 2008) who considered 103 scientific studies on the issue. The nuclear industry estimate is included in this range. Also, the high number here is close to the mean number from the review study, not the high number from that study, so the lifecycle range is fair.
B. Opportunity-cost emissions: Range 68-180 g-CO2/kWh based on the 10-19 year planning-to-operation time for nuclear power plants relative to wind farms (2-5 years on average). This time includes a site permitting time (3.5 to 6 years), a construction permit approval and issue time (2.5 to 4 years), and construction time (4 to 9 years). The justification for this is given in Jacobson (Energy and Environmental Science, 2, 148-173, 2009, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm).
Commentators distort the information by referring only to construction time and ignoring site permitting time and construction permit and approval and issue time. They erroneously claim that nuclear plant construction starts the day that someone wants to build one. Construction times of some plants of 5 years fall within the construction time estimate given in that study of 4-9 years. However, 4 years is optimistic and not average. For example, a Finland plant has no estimated completion time despite the "4 year estimate" and the Flamanville, France plant "is also behind schedule and overbudget" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html)
Further Koomey and Hultman (Energy Policy, 35, 5630-5642, 2007) showed that the nuclear industry "projections of capital costs, construction duration, and total operations and maintenance costs are quite low - far enough from the historical medians that additional scrutiny may be required to justify using such estimates in current policy discussions and planning." This is a nice way of saying that the industry is known to low-ball estimates of costs and construction times in order to gain financial benefits, such as loan guarantees, and there is no reason to think things have changed.
C. Loss of carbon stored in land due to covering land with nuclear facilities and from uranium mining: Range: 0.5-0.75 g-CO2/kWh. This is a new calculation, not published, but not large either.
D. Risk of carbon emissions from one nuclear explosion over 30 years attributable to nuclear weapons proliferation. Range: 0-4.1 g-CO2/kWh. This is referenced and discussed in detail in Jacobson (Energy and Environmental Science, 2, 148-173, 2009), discussed earlier. The range also includes the estimate of 0 g-CO2/kWh. It is not credible to deny the risk, as India, Pakistan, and Iran all secretly developed or are developing weapons under the cover of nuclear energy facilities.
Total Range from A-D: 68.5 - 181 g-CO2/kWh.
This range is 9-17 times larger on average (and up to 25 times larger) than a wind turbines operating in mean annual wind speeds of 7-8.5 m/s (7.5 - 10.8 g-CO2/kWh), where 7 m/s is the lowest wind speed that we recommend wind turbines to go into.
2. With regard to land, nuclear advocates against renewable energy are confused by the difference between spacing and footprint. Footprint is the land touching the ground, spacing is empty space between wind turbines or the buffer zone around nuclear power plants. Spacing between wind turbines is used for farmland, ranchland, open space, and open ocean (where zero land is taken up). The TED slides at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html
show photographs of wind versus nuclear and for a map of the spacing versus footprint area. Wind turbines take up 1000 times less land footprint than does nuclear. In fact, powering the U.S. vehicle fleet with wind would require a footprint of 1-2.8 square kilometers of land for the turbines and concrete base; powering it with nuclear would require a footprint 1000-2100 square kilometers for the facilities, uranium mining areas, and waste areas (but not including the nuclear buffer zone).
An estimate of a nuclear spacing plus footprint area for nuclear facility plus mining and storage is about 20.5 km^2, with footprint of 4.9-7.9 km^2 based on data from Spitzley and Keoleian (http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS04-05R.pdf). The land required for uranium mining and nuclear facility with a buffer zone is 0.06 ha yr / GWh and 0.26 ha yr/GWh, respectively. That required for waste storage is 0.08 km^2. The total land required is 0.6 ha-yr/GWh from the above citation.
Remaining arguments made by commentators are easily refuted in the published studies and tables at the following sites
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html
In sum, nuclear energy represents a more polluting and dangerous opportunity cost over real renewable energy systems. Because of the sufficient abundance of renewable energy to power the entire world multiple times over and because this can be done with slightly more than one percent of the worlds land, and because it is possible to combine renewables to match nearly all hourly power demand before even considering demand-side management, vehicle-to-grid, storage, or other methods of matching, there is no need for nuclear energy.
Speaking of getting realistic, Dr. Criswell's Lunar Solar Power System actually IS capable of supplying the entire planet with electricity in short order - and wouldn't require massive new grid construction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt can be built today, using 1990's technology.
Basically, ten years to build the first phase to the capacity of half the U.S. energy consumption, rapidly scalable beyond that, break even on the investment at 15 years. Cost per kilowatt - around one tenth of present rates.
http://lunarsolarpowersystem.blogspot.com is a good resource on this.
I can't believe Scientific American isn't aware of this. There was a great article on this in The Industrial Physicist Magazine back in 2003. Follow that link above, to get to it.
The authors of this article don't seem to know much about the management of a grid. Here are some facts:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe managers of a grid must manage the power plants connected to the grid such that there is a balance with the loads that are connected to the grid. The balance is evaluated roughly every 5 seonds. If there is no balance the frequency will change and this could be severely detrimental to every appliance connected to the grid. Windmills connected to the grid make this balance more difficult to achieve. World experience to date indicates that windmills cannot supply more than 5-10% of the power because it is otherwise too difficult to compensate for the variation in power.
Connecting windmills to the grid requires that there also be conventional power plant that can rapidly adjust for the variation in wind speed. This would eliminate nuclear and coal for this task because they are not designed to have their power continously varied. However natural gas plants can do this to some extent. So placing windmills on a grid means more natural gas plants. This combination is not carbon free.
Another problem that must be managed is line losses. Power lines tend to heat up when they conduct electricity. Those losses are reduced by having high voltage lines for long range transmission. Nevertheless there will always be losses, and that is why power plants need to be near their load centers. Those who want to transmit solar or wind from more than a few hundred miles would find that most of the power goes to heating the air next to the transmission lines rather than getting to the load centers.
Hi mzjacobson - not that it greatly matters to a country with a low population density ,such as USA, but the footprint of a large windturbine is a lot larger than that of the foundations. In any location with more than a few millimetres annual rainfall, common sense dictates that each turbine has an access road capable of supporting the crane that firstly installed it and secondly might be required for emergency repairs. This might well be a factor required by the insurers. This means that for many turbines 600 square metres or more of road is required to be constructed and maintained. Please respond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet�s leave the theory and go to the real world, mzjacobson.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in Sweden and happen to know that 1 million windmills and the same number of solarplants would not be sufficient to Stockholm, why is that? a) Because there are mostly no breeze! b) Most of the hours we have sunshine is from may to august.
The problem of storaging energy is well known. Still it is neglected in most "alternative" studies. Renewables just don�t work for most of the people in Tellus! We still need oil, gas, nuclear etc to ensure continuity in supply. That is why these sources became popular in the first place.
I really like and agree with Jacob's ideas, but 100% dependency on renewable sources by 2030 seems like its cutting it way too close. I could maybe see 40-50% as a reasonable goal in 2030 while renewable technologies will most likely grow much cheaper and become more efficient around that time. But, I would say a realistic goal for 100% dependency on clean renewables for energy would be around 2050. It allows more time for the technology to grow a bit more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note with regret that mzjacobson has seen fit to ignore my point about the need for permanent access roads to large wind turbines, and it's effect on footprint estimates. Perhaps he might reconsider - it would be the scientifically correct way to proceed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been reading a lot of the comments. I don't know if Nuclear energey or WWS is the best way to go but I do know that the cost argument is not valid. When WWII started America knew and felt the emergency. All cost concerns were put on hold and the job was just done. The problem with global warming is that the public and the world's population do not understand the seriousness of the global warming issue. I'm sure if the earth was being attacked by aliens all cost concerns would be dropped and everyone would unite to fight at whatever the cost. If people understood the potential threat from global warming then cost would not be a factor either. Our problem with global warming is as much a political probem as it is a scientific one. Corporations care more about making money right now than they do about potential threats to the world. Lobbyists are keeping the knowledge of the threat down as much as they can. I don't know how we can overcome the political aspect but I do know that cost should not be an issue. Even if we have to take control of what industries we have left (by law or force)and start doing what needs to be done. Of course that is not going to happen as long as corporations have the power they have now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour an engineer so this is a no brainer. 1)The electric transmission is over 85% efficient, that's why railroad trains are usually turboelectric. 2)Changing the angle of attack of the propeller is usually only efficant within a predictable range.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's two places where you either use magnets or spend a lot of money on RPM/voltage regulation that is 60% efficient at best. One coil and a magnet is reliable and actually has fewer moving parts.
If we could improve the performance of our transistors then we could also improve our photovoltaics, but we havn't and The United States doesn't make either anymore anyhow.
Toyota has announced they have the ability to make their hybrid cars without rare earth metals. While Lithium batteries are preferred for efficiency, some manufacturers are using metal halide batteries, and other battery designs are in development. Something else the author missed was to mention how electric car batteries with smart grid control act as battery storage when inactive. The widespread use of electric cars provides energy storage to balance variability of wind and solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this